JK*>Z2? 

?3y 



JK 3225 
1834 
.P48 
Copy 1 






it* 



ADDRESS 



TO THE 






7 

PEOPLE OF RHODE-ISLAND, 



FROM THE CONVENTION 

ASSEMBLED AT PROVIDENCE, ON THE 22d DAY OF FEBRUARY, 
AND AGAIN ON THE 12th DAY OF MARCH, 1834, 



TO PROMOTE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A 



8TATE CONSTITUTION, 



PROVIDENCE : 

CRANSTON & HAMMOND, PRINTERS. 

1834, 



^ 



**?<* 

x ^ 









At the first meeting of the Convention, Thomas W. 
Dorr, Joseph K. Angell, David Daniels, William H. 
Smith and Christopher Robinson were appointed a 
Committee to prepare an Address to the People of the 
State. 

At the second meeting of said Convention, Mr. 
Dorr reported,— 

That the Committee had attended to the subject of 
their appointment, and were ready to offer an Address 
for the consideration of the Convention. 

The Address having been read, it was voted, that 
the same be adopted, and printed under the direction 
of the Committee, 

NATHAN A. BROWN, President. 

William H. Smith, }* a . 

cj tt. n > Secretaries. 

bAMUEL ilr. (jrARDINER. ) 



NOTE. 

The following Address was intended to comprise a Review of the 
Defects of our present System of Government, and of the Changes most 
essential for a proper correction of those Defects. The number and 
importance of the subjects to be treated of have made it necessary to 
extend these remarks to a much greater length than the Committee 
would have desired; but they could not have been much abbreviated, 
without injustice to the Convention and to themselves. In fact each 
of the great divisions of the extensive field of Political Reform ought 
to be separately and fully treated, and would of itself furnish abun- 
dant materials for an Address to the People. The political evils 
under which we are now laboring have been gradually accumulated 
during a long series of years; and cannot be properly investigated in 
a hasty survey. They ought therefore to receive a careful attention and- 
examination, in order to insure the application of a judicious and 
effectual Remedy. 

O^r'The Reader will find the principal topics of this Address at the 
following pages — 
Definition of a Constitution, and whence it is to be 

procured. ----- 10 
Character and Defects of the Charter as an instru- 
ment of Government. 13 
Inequality of Representation, - - - 20 
Extension of Suffrage, 26 
Qualifications of Voters in each of the States. - 46 
Improvement of the Judiciary, - - - 57 



ADDRESS. 



Fellow-Citizens, 

Agreeably to an invitation from the towns of 
Cumberland and Smithfield, Delegates from the following 
towns in this State, namely, Newport, Providence, Smithfield, 
Bristol, Warren, Cranston, Johnston, North-Providence, Bur- 
rillville and Cumberland, assembled in Convention, at Provi- 
dence, on the 22d day of the last month, to consult together 
upon the best course to be pursued for the establishment of 
a written State Constitution ; which should properly define 
and fix the powers of the different Departments of Govern- 
ment, and the Rights of the Citizen. 

The Resolutions passed at our first meeting have already 
been submitted to your consideration. We deemed it a duty 
to those whom we represent, to ourselves, and to the body 
of the people of the State, whose co-operation we ask, to set 
forth in those Resolutions, explicitly, and beyond question 
or misinterpretation, an outline of the proposed Political Re- 
form ; leaving, where it belongs, to those who may be here- 
after called to the important duty of framing a Constitution, 
the task of maturing its provisions. 

The articles which we have proposed, we are fully con- 
vinced, are indispensable articles in such an instrument ; 
without which it would be insufficient, unsatisfactory and 
impracticable, — defective in the distribution of political jus- 
tice, ill adapted to the wants and feelings of the people, and 
without the promise of permanent duration. 

It was a duty to our constituents and to ourselves, thus freely to 
utter and set forth their and our views, sentiments and plans, 
and to put an end to all conjectures about ulterior and conceal- 
ed intentions, because we have nothing to disguise, nor con- 



6 

cea l ? — propose no change in the order of Government, which 
we do not believe to be clearly right, and because we deem it 
unworthy of men who live under institutions at least nominal- 
ly Republican, silently to acquiesce in the longer'continuance 
of a system so defective in its structure, and unequal in its 
operation . It was a duty to the people of the State to announce 
to them unequivocally the nature and extent of those amend- 
ments to their present system, which we offer ; especially, 
to remove every pretence of uncertainty from that part of 
our plan, which relates to the enlargement of political rights; 
and to secure to the great principles of a Constitution the 
benefits of public attention and mature judgment. And we 
are happy to be assured that the publication of our plan, in 
its length and breadth, and all its dimensions, has already 
had the effect of overcoming the doubts and objections of 
many, who were opposed to us from an imperfect acquaint- 
ance with our views ; and of enlisting their good will and as- 
sistance on the side of Reform. 

Having met again, for the second time, in Convention, 
with the addition of delegates from the towns of Scituate and 
North-Kingstown, we proceed, fellow-citizens, to state and 
to enforce, more at large, those reasons and arguments, 'by 
which the subject of our Resolutions is recommended to the 
good sense and justice of the people of Rhode-Island, intend- 
ing to use great plainness of speech, and endeavoring, at the 
same time, to present our opinions as briefly as the extent 
and importance of the matters to which they relate will in 
any wise permit. 

There are some preliminary considerations, with which 
we would occupy a few moments of your time, before ad- 
vancing to the principal topics which belong to the present 
examination. 

We desire then to disclaim, in the outset, any design or 
desire of offering the slightest disrespect to the memory, 
or to the character of our predecessors, who first established 
that scheme of government, into which we are now anxious 
to carry the work of reformation. If any pride of ancestry 
may be indulged in this country, the people of Rhode-Island 
may honorably exult in those noble forefathers, who aban- 



doned their native home, and again, their adopted land, and 
encountered the dangers of a savage wilderness, for the sake 
of that great experiment of Religious Liberty, in the blessings 
of which we all participate. Assembled as we now are, 
almost within a stone's cast of the ashes of Roger Williams, 
that one of us who should utter a word of disparagement of 
such a man, or his illustrious fellow^patriots would feel him- 
self rebuked by the Genius of the Place. We revere the 
names of those venerable ancestors. We glory in our inher- 
itance ; and animated, as we trust (though some of us are but 
the subjects, rather than the citizens of a Republican State) 
by a portion of their own love of freedom, of their firm pur- 
pose, of their zealous and determined perseverance ; — and 
resolved to carry out still farther into practice the life and 
purport of those principles which they maintained, at the 
foundation of the state, we would employ our earnest and 
unremitted exertions for the correction of defects and errors, 
which, in the progress of time and change, are inevitably 
found to exist in the best organized system of Government, 
and which are, at this moment, so visible and palpable in our 
own. If we bring to our undertaking any of the ancient, 
sturdy spirit of Rhode-Island patriotism, we shall deserve, 
and, in the end, obtain a proportionate success. 

Nor is the business, fellow-citizens, in which we are en- 
gaged, a mere narrow party-affair, got up to promote the sor- 
did views of personal aggrandizement. The aspect of our 
assembly, composed, as it is, of men of all the political divis- 
ions in the State, affords sufficient evidence to the contrary. 
We have individually sacrificed no opinions on National af- 
fairs ; we intend to sacrifice none : we have asked no one to 
make this sacrifice ; we do not intend so to ask, nor desire to 
see it made by any who may act with us. Leaving the field 
of National politics to every man's previous preferences and 
attachments, we find, in the present political necessities of 
our own State, a common ground for friendly and harmoni- 
ous action. We meet here as brethren and fellow-laborers, 
and cast aside all personal feelings and prejudices, for the 
promotion of an object, which is large enough, and wide 
enough to comprehend within its limits men of every politi- 



cal complexion, and all men, who have at heart the public 
honor and welfare. 

There has been too much strife in this State about Men, 
and for the benefit of Men; too much Man- Worship. Party 
after party has come into power; and many of us have lent 
our aid in effecting" these party triumphs. But we have had 
the mortification of perceiving that very little has been done, 
for the improvement of our political condition, from the fear 
of endangering this or that man's office or expectation of of- 
fice, — from the fear of offending, or from a desire to conciliate 
this or that prominent politician, — from an anxiety to stand 
well with this or that interest in the community. The fact, 
and the causes of it have been so apparent, that the mere 
statement is the sufficient proof of them. And it has been 
for a long time a certain conviction, in the mind of every ac- 
curate observer of political affairs, that nothing but a union 
of men of different parties could ever promise any very decisive 
change for the better in the condition of our institutions. In 
the spirit of concession and compromise upon matters of local 
politics, we have made this union, under the standard of a 
Constitutional Party. 

Few who are seriously in favor of the cause we support 
will question the expediency, and indispensable necessity of a 
party organization to insure its success. There must be a 
head and front to our undertaking. A great political benefit 
to all parties and classes of men must be brought about by 
political means. The idea that they who are opposed to a 
Reformation, or who feel little interest in it, will take any 
measures for its accomplishment, while its friends remain in 
apathy, or confine themselves to complaints, resolutions and 
memorials, instead of presenting themselves in the attitude 
of political preparation, is too delusive to be encouraged for 
a moment, and is repelled by all past experience. A party 
on wide and liberal grounds, such as we hope has now 
been formed among us, becomes a centre for the accumula- 
tion of new forces, it affords a rallying point for the doubtful 
and hesitating; it collects public opinion, and brings it to bear, 
In the strongest and surest manner, upon the ends to be at- 
tained. 



9 

That the present is a favorable time, and the right time 
for the formation of such a party, we cannot entertain a 
doubt. The all-absorbing question of a Presidential election 
has been disposed of for the present, by the re-election of 
the present incumbent. There is not, at this moment, such 
a doubtful balance of parties in the State as to give to any 
attempt at Reform the appearance of being a measure design- 
ed solely for the purpose of securing a preponderance to ei- 
ther side. There is also, if we do not greatly mistake the 
signs of the times, an increasing disposition in all parts of the 
State, and among all classes of our citizens, in favor of the 
desired result, founded on the belief of its necessity and jus- 
tice. In order then to obtain this result, which has been 
heretofore unattainable by other parties, from the nature of 
their position, and from other causes, we ask you, fellow-cit- 
izens, to approve our design, and to aid us in its execution, if 
you are already convinced that it is meritorious ; or if we 
shall be able to offer you any arguments adapted to produce 
conviction. When you are so convinced, the surrender by 
you of local feelings to the general good, will, we doubt not, 
be cheerfully and decisively made. 

Should you ask us for a more particular expression of our 
motives of action, we shall make, in reply, no loud profession 
of good intentions. Such professions, from the too frequent 
contradiction of them in practice, have fallen under a just 
suspicion, and are received with a very hesitating confidence 
by the public. Judge us by our icorks. By them we wish to 
be tried; and are ready to stand or fall. If we deviate from 
the straight and onward course which we have marked out, 
for the furtherance of secondary or sinister ends, we fail, and 
justly fail in a cause, of which Ave shall thus prove ourselves 
to be the unworthy advocates. But should we proceed with 
singleness of purpose, with a firm and steady regard to the 
great object before us, — addressing ourselves with good tem- 
per and moderation to the sense and justice of the people, — 
and if not without reproach, yet above the fear of it, when 
unjust, we shall not only deserve, but receive the support of 
our fellow-citizens, and witness the issue of our labors to the 
honor and advantage of the State, 



10 

It would be consuming your time unnecessarily, to enlarge 
upon the practical evils growing out of the exercise of irre- 
sponsible power in general; and which are attendant upon 
all irregular and fluctuating legislation. To attempt to con- 
vince you, by a formal argument, of the truth of this great 
axiom in political science, would argue a disrespect for your 
understanding and information of which we shall not be 
guilty. 

It is equally apparent, as a general principle, that a discre- 
tionary regulation of the Elective Right, and of the Judicial 
System, can never be properly and safely vested in the Leg- 
islature. In the language of the learned and eminent Chan- 
cellor Kent, — cc The power of making laws is the supreme 
power in a State ; and the department in which it resides 
will naturally have such a preponderance in the political sys- 
tem, and act icith such mighty force upon the public mind, that the 
line of separation between that and the other branches of 
the government ought to be marked very distinctly, and with 
the most careful precision." (1st vol. Commentaries, page 207.) 
It will not do to say that the frequency of elections in this 
State affords a remedy for any evils in the administration of 
its affairs. Public Opinion, it is true, does operate upon, and 
in a great degree control the action of the Legislature ; but 
]etit never be forgotten that there is always a strong reaction, 
much stronger than we are sometimes aware, of the Legisla- 
ture upon the people, in the formation of this opinion. It is 
in a great measure moulded and shaped by men who hold high 
stations, with a corresponding influence ; and it will ever be 
the aim of those who exercise irregular power, so to guide 
and direct the opinion of their constituents, that it shall 
interfere the least with their own purposes and interests. 

We believe then, indeed, we feel positively assured, that the 
only method of accomplishing political reform in this State 
is the adoption of a new written Constitution. The great, 
the single object of our party is the adoption of such a Con- 
stitution. This main scheme in which we are engaged neces- 
sarily involves in it several important subjects, that require 
to be treated of in detail. We propose, in the first place, to 
make known, and in as few words as possible, what we 



11 

mean by a written constitution ; and we will endeavor to de- 
signate, at the same time, the legitimate and proper source, 
from which, as we conceive, such an instrument is to be pro- 
cured. 

A Constitution is the fundamental law of a State. It is 
something intended to prescribe the powers and duties of 
government, and of the separate branches of the govern- 
ment ; and also to establish, the qualifications of electors, and 
generally to define the rights of the citizen. It may consist 
of an aggregate of laws and usages, like the Constitution of 
England ; or, it may be a written instrument, like the Con- 
stitution of the United States. There are two classes, at 
least, of written Constitutions. The people of Rhode-Island 
require not to be informed, that there is one class of written 
constitutions consisting of such as are granted, by Monarchs 
to their subjects ; in which class are included the charters 
derived from the British crown, and granted to the several 
Colonies of North- America ; and under which all the colonies 
were for a certain period governed, and until they became 
independent States. But there is another class of written 
constitutions, with which the people of Rhode-Island have 
been less conversant ; although it is the class, which, upon 
just principles, can be most successfully advocated. This 
class comprises the Constitutions which come directly from 
the free and sovereign People ; being such as do now exist in 
every State of the Union, with the single exception of Rhode- 
Island. 

When the American States severed the political tie which 
formerly bound them to Great Britain, all obligation to ac- 
knowledge obedience to a BritishCharter, as a Constitution 
of government, was, of course, dissolved ; and the people of 
each State were left free and sovereign. The people of each 
State, upon the happening of that momentous event, became 
equally tenants in common of the right of sovereignty ; and 
all were equally entitled to a voice in directing what should 
be established as the fundamental rules of government, or in 
other words, what should be the Constitution. The sover- 
eignty of the King of England passed, therefore, not to the 
Governor and Company of Rhode-Island, but to the People 



12 

at large, who fought the battles of the Revolution, and to 
their descendents. These positions are neither new, nor in- 
defensible. It has been judicially, and by one of the earliest 
appointed Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, 
declared, that '-the Constitution is the work of the people 
themselves, in their original, sovereign and unlimited ca- 
pacity."* 

The learned Judge to whom we refer, on the same occa- 
sion, described what was then understood in this country by 
a constitution. "A Constitution," he says, " is the form of 
government delineated by the mighty hand of the People ; 
in which certain first principles, or fundamental laws are es- 
tablished." It is, he adds, c: certain and fixed ;" it contains 
" the permanent will of the people," being " the supreme 
law of the land," being " paramount to the will of the Legis- 
lature," and liable only " to be revoked or altered by those 
who made it." 

There is one fact which of itself is adapted to awaken at- 
tention, and it is, that such a constitution as has just been 
described, has been established in every State except our 
own. That the people of Rhode-Island retain their inherent 
right to establish (in their original, sovereign capacity) a 
Constitution, cannot for a moment, be doubted ; inasmuch 
as they never have made a surrender of it either directly or 
indirectly. Whenever therefore the people shall see fit to 
organize a government under a constitution of their own 
making, every good citizen will cheerfully submit to it. The 
important question then to be examined is — Has there been, 
oris there now, less occasion for a new written Constitution 
in Rhode-Island than in any other State of the Union? A 
moment's consideration makes it appear at least probable, 
that some amelioration in the condition of the people of the 
State could be effected by substituting a new Constitution in 
the place of a British Charter, which was written out more 
than one hundred and seventy years ago, when the checks 
and restraints upon government, in no part of the world 

* See the Charge of Judge Patterson to the Grand Jury, in the 
case of Van Home v. Dorrance, in the Circuit Court of the Pennsyl- 
vania District, in 1795 ; reported in 2 Dallas' Rep. page 304. 



13 

were so well adjusted, as they now are, to the maintenance 
of. rational liberty. In Rhode-Island, as elsewhere, the ob- 
ject of government should be understood to be the welfare 
of the people generally ; an object not to be arrived at with- 
out taking as a guide the everlasting principles of liberty 
and justice. Liberty and Justice are no idle, nor insignificant 
words. In the whole range of human language there are no 
two words more pregnant in meaning. They comprise, as a 
part of their definition, restraints upon rulers, protection 
against legislative aggression, and a perfect guaranty of the 
rights of the citizen. Are these great objects properly se- 
cured by the Charter of Charles II. ? We propose, in answer 
to this question, and in the spirit of candor, to consider that 
instrument with some attention. 

We begin by inquiring whether it be consistent with the 
spirit of the Declaration of American Independence, and be- 
coming the character of Rhode-Island Republicans, any lon- 
ger to acknowledge the charter of a British King as a Con- 
stitution of civil government ? If the trappings of royalty 
appended to this instrument were taken away, would it not 
be better suited to a people who have changed the name of 
u subjects" for that of citizens, even allowing it to be in all 
other respects, perfect ? These royal supplements of " espe- 
cial grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion" are the 
badges of our former colonial dependence; and are as inap- 
propriate to our present condition as the habiliments and 
toys of childhood are to the proportions and habits of a 
more mature age. The Declaration of Independence, which 
severed forever the connection between Great Britain and 
the Colonies, should teach us a lesson on this subject; and it 
is this, — that, retaining all which is valuable in the provisions 
of the old Charter, we ought long since to have discarded its 
form. But it will be said, are we not all Republicans; and is 
there any thing in the name of Royalty to affright us ? In the 
political world, more than any where else, names are things, 
as we all know by experience: and if but a single person, in 
his inquiry after political truth, and the principles of repub- 
licanism, should be misled or offended by the senseless for- 
mularies of u divine right," in which our grant of govern- 



14 

ment is wrapped up, then ought we forthwith to assume both 
the form and truth of the Republican system. But admit- 
ting, merely for the sake of argument, that the form of the 
Royal Charter, with all its monarchical appendages, subsists 
as firmly as when the seal was affixed to it, and that it was 
derived from a proper source, a far more important inquiry 
yet remains to be made. Are the Powers and Duties of the 
different Departments of our Government properly marked 
out and denned by the Charter ? 

When we take into view the time at which, and the objects 
for which the Charter of King Charles II. was granted, we 
freely admit it to be in many respects a very good instru- 
ment. There is however but one of the provisions contained 
in it, involving legislative power and popular right, that was 
calculated for all future times. The provision referred to is, 
That no person shall be called in question for any opinion in mat- 
ters of Religion, ivho does not actually disturb the civil peace. In 
a Constitution for this State, this provision of the Charter 
should be scrupulously preserved. It cannot be copied too 
literally, nor retained too tenaciously, the act of the General 
Assembly, excluding Roman Catholics from the polls, to the 
contrary notwithstanding. 

The main object in procuring the Charter of Charles II. 
was not to define with exactness the powers of the govern- 
ment it constituted ; but it was to define territorial bounda- 
ries, and to secure a permanent union of all portions of terri- 
tory under one domain. This is not only fairly to be presu- 
med from the face of the Charter itself, but it still more 
clearly appears by a recurrence to the circumstances under 
which that instrument was solicited and obtained from the 
government of the mother country. It is a matter of some 
interest to understand what the circumstances were under 
which it was solicited and obtained. It appears, that origi- 
nally the town of Providence constituted a distinct jurisdic- 
tion by itself; and so also did the island of Rhode-Island; and 
Warwick likewise. These several territorial divisions be- 
came first united, and were first brought within one jurisdic- 
tion, by the charter of 1643. This charter is very short, and 
is very loose in its terms. It embraces a general power to 



15 

establish such a government as should be agreed on by the 
" voluntary consent of all." In obtaining this voluntary con- 
sent in favor of uniting and consolidating different portions 
of territory under one government, there was much difficulty; 
for it was not until the year 1647, that a general government 
was agreed upon and established. In that year was the first 
General Assembly convened ; and the place of convention 
was the town of Portsmouth. The government thus estab- 
lished was dissolved in 1651, by another Charter obtained by 
Coddington (constituting him governor) : and this Charter 
severed the islands of Rhode-Island and Conanicut from the 
connection which they before had with Providence and War- 
wick. Though Coddington's Charter was soon vacated, a 
re-union of the several towns was not immediately thereupon 
effected ; but on the contrary, Representatives from Provi- 
dence and Warwick met at Providence, while another As- 
sembly met on the Island. When a re-union took place, 
which, after much difficulty, was effected, it became an ob- 
ject to perpetuate it ; and for this purpose, principally, was 
procured, in 1663, the Charter of King Charles II., which still 
exists as the nominal Constitution of the State. 

That Charter is so superabundant in words, and oft repeat- 
ed recitals, that no inconsiderable degree of patience is re- 
quired in extracting from it its exact meaning and import. 
The only Constitution of government it prescribes may, in 
plain and more modern language, be embraced within a very 
small compass. After appointing a Governor, Deputy Gov- 
ernor and Ten Assistants, to continue such until the first 
Wednesday in May next ensuing, it then provides that those 
officers shall be elected, on the first Wednesday in May in 
each year, at Newport, " by the greater part of the said Com- 
pany for the time being who shall be then and there present." 
The officers just named, with six persons from Newport, four 
for each of the respective towns of Portsmouth, Providence 
and Warwick, and two persons for each other town, to be 
elected by the major part of the freemen of the respective 
towns, are to hold a General Assembly, twice in every year; 
namely, on every first Wednesday in the month of May, and 
on every last Wednesday in the month of October, or oftener, 



16 

if it shall be requisite. The members, or the greater part of 
the members, constituting this Assembly (" whereof the 
Governor, or Deputy Governor, and six of the Assistants, at 
least to be seven") are invested with the following general 
Powers, viz ; — To alter the times and places of holding the 
General Assembly; — To admit free such persons as they may 
think fit ; — To create such offices, and elect such officers as 
they shall deem requisite ; — To make and repeal such laws, 
forms and ceremonies of government as shall be deemed ad- 
visable; — To establish Courts and appoint Judges; — To regu- 
late the manner of election to offices and places of trust; — To 
prescribe the number and limits of new towns ; — and finally, 
to use the sweeping words of the Charter, "To direct, rule, 
order and dispose of all other matters and things as to them 
shall seem meet." 

It will be perceived then that the Powers conferred by the 
Charter for the organization and administration of the gov- 
ernment, afford so much latitude, and are of such indefinite 
import, as to leave a great deal too much to the discretion 
of the Legislature; more especially, as, since the Declaration 
of Independence, no appeal can be had, as formerly, by an 
aggrieved party, to a tribunal of the mother country.* Fur- 
ther than this, a variety of instances can be pointed out, 
which show that the General Assembly have heretofore con- 
sidered the Charter an instrument conferring upon them a 
dominion entirely discretionary. 

The Charter, as we have already seen, provides that the 
Governor, Deputy Governor and Assistants are to be elected 
on every first Wednesday in May, at Newport, by a majority 
of the voters then and there present. This provision the Gen- 
eral Assembly have deemed themselves competent to annul. 
By an Act passed in October, 1664, — less than a year after the 
public proclamation of the Charter, which was made at New- 
port, on the 24th of November, 1663, — it was provided that all 
freemen who so desired, instead of coming in person to New- 
port to vote for General Officers, on the first Wednesday in 

*The General Assembly, at the June session 1719, went even so far 
as to cut off the liberty of appeal to the King in council, unless the 
matter in controversy was of the value of Three Hundred Pounds, 



17 

May, might vote in lawful town meetings; where their proxy 
votes should be received, and thence transmitted to the Gen- 
eral Assembly. 

In August, 1760, voting at Newport was entirely prohibited, 
except to members of the General Assembly; and the voters 
were directed to vote in their respective towns on the third 
Wednesday of April. 

We have perceived too that the Charter provides, that the 
Freemen are to be admitted by the General Assembly; where- 
as the General Assembly, directly contrary to that provision, 
enacted in the year 1666, that the freemen should be admit- 
ted by the freemen of the respective towns, in town-meeting. 

The Charter also appoints that the Governor, Deputy 
Governor, and Assistants, with the Representatives chosen 
by the several towns, shall hold a General Assembly, without 
any provision for forming two separate Houses ; and yet, by 
an Act of the General Assembly, passed in 1696, the Govern- 
or, Deputy Governor and Assistants are to sit separately. 

The act authorizing a Lieutenant Governor, or senior Sen- 
ator to discharge the duties of Governor, in case of a vacancy 
by non-election, death or resignation, — or of his absence or 
inability, is another instance of the exercise of a sovereign 
discretion by the Legislature, for the purpose of remedying a 
defect in the Charter. 

We wish to be understood, that we consider neither of the 
above Acts in itself objectionable. We have pointed them 
out merely as being essential deviations from some of the 
most precise directions set down in the Charter. 

But what must be thought of the Act of the General As- 
sembly* excluding Roman Catholics from the polls ? The 

*The Act of February, 1783, extends to Roman Catholic citizens 
all the Rights and Privileges of the Protestant citizens of this State, as 
declared by the act of the first of March, 1663 — 4, " any exceptions in 
the said act to the contrary notwithstanding/' (see the last paragraph 
of this note.) The clause of exclusion in this act — " Roman Catholics 
only excepted" — was evidently added to the act of 1664, long after- 
ward, sometime between the years 1719 and 1730. It is not to be 
found in the records of the State so far down as the year 1719; when 
the first (imperfect) edition of the Laws was published. In the second 
edition, of 1730, it appears for the first time. The Legislature there- 
fore, when they spoke of this clause as a part of the act of 1G63 — 4, 



18 

Charter, in this instance, was treated as a perfectly dead let- 
ter; for it expressly provides — "That no person within the 
said Colony, at any time hereafter, shall be in any wise moles- 
ted, punished, disquieted, or called in question for any dif- 
ferences of opinion in Matters of Religion, who does not actu- 
ally disturb the civil peace." Professors of the Roman Cath- 
olic faith were, by the act of tyrranny referred to, not on- 
ly "molested" and u disquieted," but " punished; " and that 
too, by denying to them the inestimable right of suffrage ! 
To come down to a later period — Soon after the State was, 
with the other States, acknowledged Free and Independent, 

must be understood to have considered it as an addition or amendment. 
The present Charter was granted in July 1663 ; and it is altogether 
incredible that Roger Williams and his associates, then members of 
the Legislature, should have consented, four months after the reception 
of the Charter, to an enactment so directly contrary both to the letter 
and spirit of one of its most essential provisions ; for the establishment 
of which they had used such strenuous exertions. There is extant in 
a work of Roger Williams, printed in 1652, a full recognition of the 
religious rights of Papists. If any doubt remained upon this question, 
it would be removed by the declaration of the Assembly in May, 1665, 
in answer to the King's Commissioners, That equality of civil and re- 
ligious rights had been " a principle set forth and maintained in this 
colony, from the very beginning thereof '." 

Whatever, then, may have been the occasion of subsequently insert- 
ing this clause of exclusion in the Act of 1664 (and it seems probable 
that it was done to prove the loyalty of the Colony, in the contest be- 
tween the Government and the Pretender to the throne of England,) it 
was suffered to remain in three editions of our Statute-Book, as a part of 
the law of the land, for more than fifty years ; and, as far as we can learn, 
unquestioned as such by any one. So flagrant a violation of the Char- 
ter proves conclusively, that the Legislature then, as they did after- 
ward, and do at present, considered and treated that instrument as if 
it were entirely subject to their control ; and that they claimed and 
exercised an undefined power similar to that of the English Parlia- 
ment. 

It ought to be added here, that what is called, in the act to remove 
disabilities from Roman Catholics, the Act of the first of March, 1663, 
is, in fact, the Act of 1st March, 1664. The commencement of the civil 
and legal year, it will be recollected, was anciently on the 25th of 
March ; and was not altered to the 1st of January, in the British Do- 
minions, till the year 1751, by Act of Parliament. The Charter was 
granted, in the fifteenth year of Charles II, (1663.) The Act of 1663 
above mentioned is stated in the margin of the printed copy to be of 
the sixteenth year of Charles II, which of course was 1664. All laws 
passed before the 25th of March would be dated as of the year pre- 
cedimr. 



19 

the General Assembly presented a singular example of high 
handed prerogative. The Judges of a Court, in discharge 
of their imperative duty, had ventured to decide that an Act 
passed by the General Assembly, and deeply affecting the 
rights of a citizen, was repugnant to the great principles of 
liberty contained in Magna Charta, and was incompatible 
with the acknowledged rights of even Britsh subjects. For 
thus daring to deny an unlimited and irresponsible power in 
the General Assembly, those Judges were arraigned before 
that body, when they barely escaped being punished with 
dismissal from office. The conduct of the General Assembly 
in that instance, comports well with the declaration made 
by one of the most prominent members of the House of Rep- 
resentatives, while standing in his place, viz. that the Legis- 
lature of Rhode-Island was Omnipotent. This declaration 
was made within the last twenty years, and cannot have es- 
caped the recollection of many now living. 

The General Assembly would not have proceeded as they 
did in the case just mentioned, had they not been embolden- 
ed by the Charter, which leaves it in their power to make 
and unmake Judges once a year, or oftener if they see fit. Is 
not this a capital defect? We shall have more to offer on this 
subject by and by. 

What shall we say of an Instrument of Government which 
is uncertain enough to leave it to be made a question, whether 
upon a failure to elect a Governor and Senators, the Govern- 
ment itself fell through, and with it the Legislative Acts of 
the ensuing year, the Titles to a large amount of property, and 
the Proceedings and Decisions of the Courts? We shall say, 
if we are just to ourselves, that it should be forthwith dis- 
pensed with, and that a new one should be adopted by the 
People without delay. 

The Charter is farther essentially defective in having af- 
fixed a certain Representation to each town for all time to 
come ; thus making no provision for the changes that might 
happen. 

No form of a Constitution can be worth much, which leaves 
to the Representative Servants of the People the power of 
determining the Rights of the People as voters. The People 



20 

ought always to do this for themselves, and not leave it to 
be done for them. Strange mistakes sometimes happen from 
this neglect; as in this State, where it has become necessary 
to ask Who the People are ? More on this subject in another 
place. 

Who will say by what right the towns of North-Kingtown 
and South-Kingstown are singled out from the other towns 
in the State, by the act of June 1722, and each entitled to a 
Senator ? 

In May, 1778, the first Senator having declined serving, 
the General Assembly promoted each of the other Senators 
one degree higher, and elected a new tenth senator ! ! 

Without citing any more examples, we appeal then to our 
fellow-citizens, and ask them whether there does not exist 
abundant reason for proclaiming what was expressed in one 
of the Resolutions passed at the first session of the Conven- 
tion, namely, — That the Powers of the Legislature, and the 
Rights of the Citizen should be defined and fixed by a writ- 
ten State Constitution ? 

A subject of just complaint, and one which loudly calls 
for the corrective hand of a Constitution, is the extreme 
Inequality of oca Representation. This evil has been 
entailed upon us by our strange adherence to the Charter 
of Charles II. This Charter provides (as we have seen) 
that the towns in the State shall be represented by <; not 
exceeding six persons for Newport, four persons for each 
of the respective towns of Providence, Portsmouth and 
Warwick, and two persons for each other town." At the 
time the Charter was granted, this was a fair and equal ap- 
portionment of Representatives, according to the relative 
population of the several towns. But since that period, the 
relative population of our towns has so greatly changed, 
and so many small towns, entitled to two representatives 
each, have been incorporated, by dividing and sub-dividing 
larger ones, that the Freemen of this state are now very un- 
equally and unfairly represented in our State Legislature. 
In order to show the extent of this inequality, we ask your 
attention to a few statements, which you will find fully sup- 
ported, by referring to the official returns of votes polled, in 



21 

each town at our recent elections, and by comparing the 
number of these votes with the number of Representatives 
to which each town is entitled by the Charter. 

At the last spring election, the whole number of votes polled 
in all the towns in this state was 7317. One third of this 
number is 2439. Our House of Representatives consists 
of 72 members. 38 of these (being a majority of two mem- 
bers) were elected by 2384 qualified freemen, — less than 
one third of the qualified freemen of the State who then 
voted. The remaining 34 members were of course elect- 
ed by the remaining 4933 freemen. The result is about the 
same at our other elections. 

Half the freemen or (more properly speaking) qualified vo- 
ters in the State amount by the returns to 3658. 51 Repre- 
sentatives (being a majority of 15) are now elected by 3637 
voters ; less than half the qualified voters in the State. The 
remaining 21 Representatives are of course elected by the 
remaining 3680 qualified voters. 

By descending a little to particulars, we shall find instances 
of inequality still more unjust and indefensible. The town 
of Jamestown, for instance, sends one Representative to 
every 18 freemen; — while the town of Burrillville sends but 
one Representative to every 113 freemen; the town of Fos- 
ter but one Representative to every 156 freemen; — the town 
of Smithfield but one Representative to every 206 freemen;— 
and the city of Providence but one Representative to every 
275 freemen. 

Thus our system supposes that one freeman of the town 
of Jamestown is entitled to as much political weight and 
importance as 6 freemen of the town of Burrillville, 8 
of the town of Foster, 1 1 of the town of Smithfield, and 1 5 
of the city of Providence. It consequently takes 6 free- 
men in Burrillville, 8 in Foster, 11 in Smithfield and 15 in 
Providence, to equal one freeman of the town of Jamestown. 
The result will be very similar by comparing other small 
towns with larger ones. 

An inequality of representation like this is too unjust to be 
much longer tolerated. It is not uncommon in the monarch- 
ies of Europe; but, with the single exception of Rhode-Island, 
4 



22 

it is unknown in the United States. It was never intended 
by our venerable ancestors who procured the Charter; and, 
if Roger Williams were now to rise from his grave, there can 
be no doubt that such inequality would, of itself, induce him 
to take the lead of a political reformation. 

If the number of representatives from each town be com- 
pared with the whole population of each town, the result will 
not materially differ from that to which we have arrived in 
considering the representation of qualified voters only. 

The whole population of this State, according to the Cen- 
sus of 1830, is 97,210. One third of this number is 32,433. — 
31,318 (being less than one third) are now represented by 
38 members of the House of Representatives, being a major- 
ity of 2 in that body. The remaining 65,892 are, of course, 
represented by only 34 members. 

Half the population of the State is just 48,605. 47,365 
(being less than half the population) are now represented by 
51 members of the House of Representatives, being a major- 
ity in that body of 15. The remaining 49,845, are, of course, 
represented by 21 members only. 

Of the twelve most agricultural towns in the State, the six 
largest have less than one third the weight of representation 
in our Legislature that the six smallest have: yet this ine- 
quality is represented by some as a mere question of interest 
between the agricultural and manufacturing towns. 

This inequality of representation has had the effect of placing 
the majority of the qualified voters in this State, under the 
control of the minority. This is as certain as the fact that 
figures speak the truth. Now who does not see that upon all 
questions in which the local interests of this minority are ad- 
verse to the local interests of the majority, they will unite 
against the majority? And who does not see that whenever 
they do so unite they will control the majority? It is an odi- 
ous feature of our present system, that it has given a local 
character to some of the most general and vitally important 
questions of legislation. What, for instance, can be more 
important than a just and equal apportionment of taxes? And 
yet our present system of representation has given a minor- 
ity of the Freemen both the interest and the power, to per- 



23 

petuate an unequal and unjust apportionment. What can be 
a more important object of legislation than to establish a just 
and equal representation of the people? Yet our present 
system has given to a minority of the Freemen both the in- 
terest and the power to continue our present unequal and un- 
just representation. Our present system is at war with the 
prosperity of the State. Is not the contemplated accession 
of territory, wealth and population from the State of Massa- 
chusetts important to our interests? Yet our present system 
has given to a minority of the Freemen both the power and 
the local interest to defeat this accession. 

Now it is one of the essential parts of the definition of a 
Republican Government, or Representative Democracy, that 
it is a government resulting from the will of the majority, ascertained 
by a just and equal representation. Is that government, then, 
where the will of the majority is not ascertained by a just 
and equal representation, but where the will of the minority 
controls that of the majority, a Republican Government? Is 
it not, in effect, whatever may be its forms, an Oligarchy — 
or the Rule of a Feiv? How, indeed, can we better define an 
Oligarchy than by calling it a government in which the less 
number, not by the power of virtue or talent, but by a politi- 
cal appointment, rule the greater? Whether this minority 
be a small or a large minority does not alter the principle. A 
large minority has no more right, on republican principles, 
to rule the majority than a small one. Even a large minori- 
ty, especially in a small State, is easily brought under the 
control of a few leading men. We have seen, that in this 
State the Legislative power is placed, by the inequality of 
our representation, in the hands of less than one third part 
of the qualified voters. These elect a majority of the Rep- 
resentatives. A few political managers, who give them- 
selves to the business, have but little difficulty in managing 
such a minority in this small State, and in ruling the whole 
State as they please, against the will of two thirds of the free- 
men, and three fourths of the people. It is not strange, there- 
fore, to find some men of all parties very unwilling to disturb 
the present order of things. 



24 

We by no means contend that representation ought to be 
proportioned to the amount of property represented, or to the 
amount of taxes paid. The citizen of small property, who 
pays a tax in proportion to his means, is as much entitled to 
a voice in the appropriation of that tax, though small in 
amount, as the most opulent man in the State. The same 
principle is applicable to towns and counties. 

The True Basis of Representation undoubtedly is that adopt- 
ed by the Constitution of the United States, — Population: for 
the representative represents not only the interests of the 
independent freemen, who are his immediate constituents, 
but also the interests of the whole population who are de- 
pendent upon, or connected with them; and property is so 
equally distributed among the people in our country, that 
the practical effect of adhering to this basis is, that those 
who pay the expenses of government will have a fair voice in 
the measures of government. We have seen that the relative 
changes in our population, and the incorporation of small 
towns have combined to change this basis; and it is certain- 
ly an aggravation of this evil, that it has carried along with 
it an extravagant disproportion between our representation 
and taxation. This will be made perfectly evident by com- 
paring our present ratio of representation with the act of the 
General Assembly, passed in 1824, establishing a valuation 
of the ratable property in every town in the State as a rule 
of taxation. It will be found by referring to that act, that 
the taxable property in the County of Providence amounts 
to 1,650,000 dollars more than all the taxable property in all 
the other Counties in the State; and yet the County of Provi- 
dence has considerably less than one third of the represen- 
tation which those Counties have. It will also be found that 
the taxable property in six of the towns in this State amounts 
to about the same as the taxable property in the other twen- 
ty-five towns: yet these six towns elect but fourteen represen- 
tatives, while the other towns elect the remaining fifty-eight 
representatives. It will also be found that some of our 
country towns pay Jive, others six, others seven, others eight 
and others nine times the amount of taxes paid by other 
country towns, having the same number of representatives 



25 

as the former; and yet this subject has often been represent- 
ed as a mere question of interest between town and country. 

These statements prove that the portion of our people who 
pay the weight of the taxes are deprived of their fair nume- 
rical influence in the appropriation of these taxes. Is this just, 
fellow-citizens? Is it right? Will posterity believe that we 
are the sons of those men of Rhode-Island who were fore- 
most to shed their blood and expend their treasure, in hum- 
bling the power of Great-Britain "for imposing taxes upon us 
without our consent" ? Certainly those who pay the weight of 
the taxes are entitled to be equally represented, in proportion 
to their numbers, with those who do not. This is all we ask 
for them. But to crowd them down below the level of their 
equal rights with one hand, and to keep the other hand in 
their pockets, only because time and accident have given us 
the power to do so, is unworthy of the successors of Roger 
Williams, — unworthy of the land of Greene, Olneyand Perry! 

Strange as it is, the State of Rhode-Island, so far famed 
for Religious liberty, seems to have become insensible to the 
claims of Political liberty. It is the only State in this great Re- 
publican Confederacy in which the People have not limited 
the power of their Legislature by a written Constitution; — 
the only State in the Union in which the People suffer a fair 
and equal representation of their interests to be defeated by a 
rotten borough system, almost as odious as that which the 
subjects of the Kino- of Great-Britain have too much republi- 
can spirit to endure, and which they have lately in a great 
degree corrected by a Parliamentary Reform. 

The remark of one of our own citizens is but too true, 
" that the great foundations of Republican Liberty and Equal- 
ity have virtually ceased to be the basis of the Government 
of Rhode-Island." He might have added, with equal truth, 
that " the evil is only to be remedied by a Constitution; 
a constitution founded upon enlightened and just principles, 
and approbated and adopted by the voice of the People." 

You have just seen that Thirty-Eight, two more than half 
of the Representatives to the General Assembly, represent 
less than one third of the population of the State, namely, Thir- 
ty-one Thousand three hundred and eighteen inhabitants; and, after 



26 

adding that a Majority of that number of inhabitants have no 
voice in the election of those Representatives, it will be time 
for us to advance to the very important inquiry, whether the 
Minority of a Minority ought any longer to govern this State; 
or, whether there ought to be such an Extension of Suffrage 
as^to include among the voters a Majority of the people. 
And in prosecuting this inquiry, we have a just claim to your 
patient attention, even if our remarks should be protracted 
to a length in any degree proportioned to its great interest 
and magnitude. A question relating to the rights and disa- 
bilities of more than Thirteen Thousand * of your fellow-citi- 
zens cannot be hastily and carelessly considered and dismiss- 
ed, without such an imputation of indifference toward their 
feelings and claims, both in those who offer reasons, and in 
those to whom those reasons are addressed, as would be 
alike discreditable to our candor, justice and patriotism. 

We contend then, That a participation in the choice of those who 
make and administer laics is a Natural Right ; which cannot be abridg- 
ed, nor suspended any farther than the greatest good of the greatest 
number imperatively requires. And this greatest good is not that 
of any portion of the people however large, but of the whole 
population of a State. It may seem strange that a funda- 
mental truth like this, which contains the very life-blood and 
vitality of a Republican Government, should be called in 
question at the present day, and in our own country. But 
it is nevertheless true that there are those, who while they 
yield a formal and guarded deference to this great doctrine, 
yet in their reasoning and practice destroy all the force of 
their hollow and doubtful admission; and maintain doctrines, 
which, if followed out to their legitimate consequences, 
would justify almost any exercise of irresponsible and unjust 
power. 

*The number of the white male citizens of this State, over the age 
of twenty-one years, according to the last census, exceeds Twenty- 
three Thousand. Ten thousand would be a very high estimate of the 
number of Freemen : probably a thousand too large. But say there 
are ten thousand Freemen in the State ; it then becomes a matter of 
the utmost importance to examine a Legislative provision, which ex- 
cludes the whole of the remaining Thirteen Thousand and some hun- 
dreds from all political privileges. 



27 

In order to comprehend more clearly the nature of the polit- 
ical right to partake in the choice of Rulers, let us see, in the 
first place, how rulers came to exist.-^-A Nation, or State, is 
a collection of families, held in union by their consent to a 
form of government for the whole, either express, or implied. 
This union for purposes of defence, and for the security .of 
previously existing rights of person and property, — founded 
on the great law of nature, written in every man's heart,— 
takes place, of course, at the first settlement of a country. 
In the early and rude ages of the world, and to the present 
period among uncivilized people, personal strength, courage 
and fortitude are the only recommendations to public favor; 
and the affairs of government are usually entrusted to men 
of war and prowess. In the course of time, the power thus 
delegated, — having become fixed in the hands of those who 
hold it, by means of military force ; or in other hands, like 
theirs, by conquest, with the aid of the long train of frauds, 
and artifices, which might enlists in its service against right, 
all over the world, — was transmitted, like property, to their 
successors, who under the names of chiefs, kings, and other 
appellations to designate the post of supremacy in a state, 
thenceforth became the established sovereigns of the different 
nations of the earth. 

That the elective process, which has been described, is 
not the mere fiction of speculative writers, but actually took 
place, at some remote period in the history of almost every 
country, — in the old world, for instance, in the progress of 
population westward, from its earliest seat in the east, — is 
rendered almost certain by what we know of the institutions 
of our remote progenitors in the forests of Germany, and by 
the laws and usages of government in some of the aboriginal 
tribes of this continent. It was adopted among ourselves by 
the Pilgrim Fathers, who, when they had passed beyond 
the execution of English laws, proceeded to form a plan 
of government, by mutual consent and natural suffrage, 
which was carried into effect upon their arrival at the rock 
of Plymouth. The proceedings of Roger Williams and his 
associates furnish another striking example; and, if we 
are not greatly mistaken, the accurate history of some of our 



28 

Western settlements, at the early period, when the hardy- 
pioneers first buried themselves in the forest, beyond the 
reach of civilization and law, would elucidate this problem 
of the formation of government, and fully sustain the sug- 
gestions that have been offered. 

As a general rule then, Government was first formed by 
the act, and with the consent of those who were to be gov- 
erned, given either expressly, or by acquiescence. And what 
did government confer upon those who established it ? Here 
lies the radical error of those who contend that all Polit- 
ical Rights are the creatures of the Political Compact. Those 
reasoners will tell you about rights created by society. We 
wish to ask previously what those rights were, which existed 
before political society itself. Those rights were the Rights 
to Life, to Liberty, to Property, — in general, to the Pursuit 
of Happiness. Life was the gift of the common Maker of all; 
and could not be taken without committing the greatest act 
of injustice, which one man can commit against another. — - 
Personal liberty too, the right to walk abroad upon the face 
of the earth, was another natural right. — The bounties of na- 
ture were all at the beginning spread out before the human 
race for their sustenance and enjoyment; and he who should 
appropriate the fruits of the earth to his own use, — and more 
especially those with which he had mixed his own labor, by 
the cultivation of the soil, had a just right to repel the inva- 
sion of him who should seek to dispossess him of what he 
had acquired. This was the natural right to property. — 
Each individual also had the right of pursuing his own hap- 
piness, in the way which he might prefer, provided he injur- 
ed no man in the enjoyment of the same right. Another 
great personal right, already alluded to, has been reserved 
for the last : it is the Right which every maw, among the families 
by which nations were composed , had, of giving or withholding his 
voice in every question relating to the union of those families in a form 
of government; and of removing from its jurisdiction if that union were 
formed against his consent. The existence of such a natural 
right is too evident to be disputed. And so far was it from 
being surrendered when government was once formed, that 
its continuance was absolutely necessary to maintain the ex- 



29 

istence of that government; by the re-election of new magis- 
trates, when the terms of those first elected had expired. 
This right is the very Right of Suffrage which is the burden of 
our present inquiry ; and which we call a Natural Right. 
Political Society could not confer that right or power upon its members, 
by the exercise of which it first came into existence. In other words, 
Man, in the exercise of his natural rights, made Government; 
and government did not give to man his rights. Why then, 
it will be asked, was government established at all, if not to 
give rights? We will answer by saying that the end of Government 
teas to make previously existing rights, conferred by the hand of God, 
more secure. Where men live in families, as we have describ- 
ed, without laws, each man is the natural, and, in most cases, 
the sole, protector of his own rights. If life, liberty, proper- 
ty and happiness be threatened or invaded, each man is 
then obliged to defend himself against the aggressor ; and 
victory will attend not upon the best right, but upon the 
strongest arm. — The portion of land appropriated out of the 
common stock to individual uses will be liable to continual in- 
vasion. — Individual happiness will be perpetually insecure. — 
The right of Suffrage, which we have shown to exist, but for 
which there is no use, in this state of things, — at last brings 
men of different families together, and they agree to certain 
laws, and upon certain magistrates to execute them; thus 
freeing themselves from the necessity of perpetual warfare 
individually against individuals, in private defence. This is 
Government. It does not give rights ; but it defines and de- 
fends them. Examine the most extensive collection of laws in 
existence, which has been gradually accumulating for ages, — 
from the necessities of men in their various relations to each 
other, — and which has been matured by the wisdom of the 
most enlightened legislator-s and judges, and you will not find 
one just law in the whole of it which is not designed to pro- 
mote and protect some one of the great natural rights, which 
existed before written law and political society itself. Gov- 
ernment then being designed to accomplish a greater good for 
each man than he could single handed secure to himself, the 
Greatest Good of the Greatest Number must be the everlast- 
ing criterion of all governments, in all ages and parts of the 
5 



30 

world: and it is the duty of patriots and philanthropists, 
whenever this greatest good has been disregarded, in the 
abridgment or suspension of natural rights, to endeavor to 
bring back government to its original and just principles. 
The idea of surrendering natural liberty, in any proper sense 
of that word, upon entering into political society, in conside- 
ration of the benefits to be derived from it, is one of those 
preposterous fictions with which day-dreaming men have so 
long abused the easy credulity of mankind ; and which des> 
potic rulers most readily embrace, that they may, with a 
greater appearance of justice, enslave and oppress their fel- 
low-creatures. A man upon entering into political society, 
surrenders to the magistrate the protection of his rights, and not 
the existence of the rights themselves. 

It is very common to attempt to make a distinction be- 
tween the right of property and the right to participate in 
political power, founded on the fact that the former is so 
much less interfered with by governments than the latter. 
From this fact the inference is drawn that the former is a 
natural right, and the latter is not. The fact of interference 
is true, but the inference is not correct. A despotic govern- 
ment will, for its own sake, respect the rights of property; 
but will carefully suppress all political rights, as coming in 
contact with itself. And yet, various restraints on the hold- 
ing of property have prevailed and now prevail in different 
countries: and the examination of them would be very much 
to our purpose, if time permitted. The reason why an en- 
lightened regard to the best good interferes so much more 
with political rights than with the right to hold property, is 
found in the different directions which these rights take in 
their exercise. In acquiring property a man directs his at- 
tention to the productions of nature and of industry, and to the 
various exchanges of them; and the more who are at work in 
this way, the better for the public. The right of voting 
brings a man in contact with his fellow-citizens in matters of 
right and interest, and controls the legislation by which the 
latter are protected. And there will be a, great many who 
are too ignorant to exercise it to tiie advantage of the whole. 



SI 

It is also objected to the doctrine of a natural right of suf- 
frage, that Minors and Females are excluded from political 
privileges. The first part of the objection, regarding minors, 
proves too much for the objectors; for as the minor is debar- 
red from the full enjoyment of the right of property also, un- 
til the age of twenty- one years, it might be argued, with 
equal show of reason, that there is no natural right of 
property; for which right the objectors strenuously contend. 
But the truth is, that the restriction upon minors does not 
conflict in the least with any natural right; it acknowledges 
their rights, and only decides the period at which they shall 
commence and be exercised. This decision is not arbitrary; 
but founded on a just observation and experience of human 
nature and character. It is necessary, before the young 
man can enjoy any of his natural rights to his own advan- 
tage, or with safety to the general good, that he should be 
able to take care of his own interests, should have attained 
to some knowledge of himself, of affairs, of mankind, of the 
nature and operations of government. True it is that some 
are better qualified for political action at the age of eighteen, 
than others at the most mature and vigorous period of life. 
But, as a general rule, twenty-one years are not too long a 
time to acquire the requisites for the full enjoyment of civil 
and political rights. If men were born ino the world in the 
full possession of their physical, mental and moral powers, 
without the necessity of development, exercise and cultiva- 
tion, then there might be some force in the objection which 
is offered. But as this is not the case, the rule of all civilized 
countries, which postpones a man's majority until he has ob- 
tained the stature and capacity of a man, is founded on a 
just deference to the greatest good of the whole, without in- 
fringing upon individual rights. This rule is merely the con- 
tinuation of a law of nature, enforced in the families of which 
we have spoken, before the formation of political society. 

With regard to the exclusion of women from the exercise 
of political power, — we are far enough from denying to them 
the possession of natural rights. It is well known that they 
formerly exercised the elective franchise in one of the States 
of this Union — New- Jersey; and now that they have ceased 
to do so, the suspension of their rights rests, not upon any 



32 

decree of mere force, but upon a just consideration of the 
best good of society, including that of the sex itself. Their 
own assent, it should be added, confirms this arrangement 
of their natural protectors ; and being fully aware that the 
dignity and purity of their sex, character and example 
would be soon impaired in the conflicts of party strife, they 
have wisely consented to forego the nominal exercise of po- 
litical power, and to rule mankind by the only absolute autho- 
rity which is consistent with their greatest happiness. There 
is only one criterion of this abridgment or suspension of the 
rights of our nature, — to which we have frequently referred: 
and if the greatest good of the greatest number do not re- 
quire the exclusion of women. from our political assemblies, 
in accordance with the decision of those countries where they 
are most honored and esteemed, then is this exclusion unjust. 
The inquiry, in each case, is strictly a question of fact. Any 
other exclusion of individuals, or classes of persons must be 
tried and decided by the same rule. 

But to proceed, — Political Liberty is not, then, as we hear it 
sometimes said, the after-growth of refined and cultivated ages, 
but it is the spontaneous offspring of a natural sense of right 
and justice; and though harsh in some of its features, in an un- 
civilzed age, it may still vigorously exist, and even then contain 
within its rude forms the germs of those institutions, which 
shall become the boast and the glory of subsequent and more 
enlightened generations. To him who studies the philosophy 
of history, it is a matter of surprise and pleasure to discover, in 
the government of the ancient Germans, the elements and 
principles of liberty which make the most valuable portion of 
the Constitution of England, and which have been carried out, 
and so greatly improved in our own admirable form of gov- 
ernment. 

If at all successful in our investigation, we have arrived at 
the conclusion, that government was designed for the protec- 
tion and perpetuation of rights, — not derived from itself, but 
natural and inherent, — in such away as to promote the great- 
est good of the whole: and that the question now before us is 
not what right of suffrage the government ought to grant, as a 
gift, but with what restrictions required by this greatest good, 
suffrage may be claimed as a right by the people of this State. 



33 

Is it consistent with this general good that the present landed 
qualification should be any longer continued as the exclusive 
condition of exercising the privilege of an elector ? 

As we are addressing Republicans, who believe that a re- 
publican government is the only one which truly consults the 
rights and happiness of the people, if we should show that 
the present restriction is, in its operation, inconsistent with 
republican principles, then we shall secure the aid of all those 
who consistently hold those principles, in having this restric- 
tion removed. 

While the general welfare is the great aim and object of 
the American plan of government, most of the governments 
of the old world are constructed and operate for the benefit 
of the few, at the expense of all the rest. The original prin- 
ciple of equality of suffrage at the formation of political soci- 
ety has been set entirely at nought; and you will see a des- 
pot whose remote ancestor was elected to the head of a state, 
on account of his valor and achievements, now claiming to 
rule over their descendents by divine right, and to exclude 
them from political privileges. The effect of this kind of gov- 
ernment and of the artificial condition of society connected 
with it, is to place all the wealth and power of the country 
in the hands of the intelligent, few; and, beyond the middle 
classes, at the other extremity of the body politic, to create 
a mass of poverty, ignorance and degradation, which is in- 
capacitated to participate, to its own good, in the government 
of the country, and unfit to accept of a better government if 
it should be offered. This is the most dreadful effect of a 
long-standing despotism. In such a state of society, where 
the vast majority are taught to regard the few who rule 
them as a higher order of beings, — are imbued with a feel- 
ing of entire servility, and have lost that of personal worth 
and independence, a true lover of his fellow-men may well 
hesitate about the propriety and the safety of suddenly intro- 
ducing a Republican system, and making them voters all at 
once, without the preparatory process of education ; since 
the good of the whole, including the oppressed themselves, 
might require their exclusion. Such a man, if in his heart a 
Republican, would, notwithstanding his hesitation about im- 



34 

mediate emancipation, still acknowledge their natural rights. 
He would feel that the poorest and most degraded subject of 
the most despotic monarch is yet a brother of the human 
race, and has within him the capacity of better things ; — ■ 
that all who wear the form of humanity are entitled to the 
hopes and privileges of human nature. He would therefore 
be anxious to qualify the oppressed as soon as possible, and 
to raise them to the privilege of self-government. But what- 
ever course a true patriot might feel himself bound to adopt, 
in one of the corrupt monarchies of the old world, no such 
reason can be given for a postponement of political rights in 
our own country. No privileged orders have ever existed 
in it, to create the vast inequality which prevails elsewhere 
between the many and the few. A spirit of freedom was 
brought with them by our ancestors, and has ever subsisted 
among as. There is a very general diffusion of useful knowl- 
edge. The great majority, also, in this country are interested in 
property of some sort or other ; and are thus strictly bound together in 
interest to support the government. The only exception to this 
general equality is in the Slave States, where a large part 
of the population is in a still lower condition, than the de- 
graded populace to which we have alluded. But be the case 
as it may in those States, there is no pretence of any such 
marked inequality among the citizens of New-England as to 
designate any particular class of them, for exclusion from 
the benefit of political rights. The true American doctrine 
is that the majority not only have a right to govern, but that 
they are sufficiently intelligent and honest to govern ; and 
that, if there be any doubt about this sufficiency, we ought 
immediately to set to work and build more schools. Men in 
Europe who are opposed to any farther improvement in gov- 
ernment may talk about the necessity of " barring out the 
people," and of "defending themselves against the people." 
But this will not do here. He therefore who contends in 
New-England for any limitation of political privileges that 
excludes a majority of his fellow-citizens from voting, what- 
ever may be his party, or professions, or denunciation of 
other men on the score of Republicanism, tells you in 
effect, startled though he may be at the sound of the words, 



35 

that he distrusts and is unfavorable to a Republican form of 
government — that he wishes " to make it safe" by confining 
all power to the minority, who will thus be able to pro- 
tect themselves against the people. Protection against the 
people in this country ! Any man strenuous for the present 
system, and who calls himself friendly also to popular rights, 
would do well to inquire for the definition of the word Peo- 
ple. It includes, besides landholders, many more who are 
getting impatient for a new definition of the word, however 
its meaning may have been settled by long usage in this 
State. Depend upon it, fellow-citizens, that if the People of 
this country become ignorant and corrupt, our form of gov- 
ernment will be changed, in spite of all the barriers of a land- 
ed qualification. While they continue intelligent, it is as 
unnecessary as it is unjust to bar out the majority. — We will 
not use any flattering words about the intelligence of the 
people, as is too often done, because we would not encour- 
age any self-satisfactian on this point. Those who now 
claim to be made voters in this State wish to see this intel- 
ligence greatly increased. They wish to see education taken 
out of the range of declamation and made a matter of fact. 
They feel a confidence in the stability of our Republican gov- 
ernment ; and that it would be treason to doubt it. Their 
reliance is on the effect of general education. They are 
anxious to see the means of a common education greatly in- 
creased in Rhode-Island, and are ready to pay their propor- 
tion of it by a poll or other tax. They will fear nothing for 
the country so soon as but a small fraction of the population 
shall be unable to read, write and cipher, and be uninstruct- 
ed in the principles of common honesty. Let those among 
us who fear to extend suffrage, on account of the alleged ig- 
norance of the applicants, lend their aid to introduce an im- 
proved and extended system of Public Schools. They will 
thus quiet their own scruples, and confer an incalculable 
benefit upon the State. This is the true, patriotic, Republi- 
can course. We do not concede the name of Republican to 
every one who uses it. He only is entitled to it, in our es- 
timation, who prefers a Republic above all other forms of 
government, who upholds it by his words and his example, 



S6 

who refuses its privileges to none who are fit for them, who 
seeks for its perpetuation in the increase of public virtue and 
intelligence. If any thiug be wanting to this definition of a 
Republican, it will be supplied by the addition that he loves 
his country more than his party, however honest it may be. 
Further, as Political is the only safeguard of Civil Liberty; 
or, in other words, as a participation in the choice of those 
who make laws is the only security that those laws shall be 
just and equal in their operation, we ask, is the civil liberty 
of the majority protected as it ought to be in this State ? 
u In countries," says an English writer, " where a man is, by 
birth or fortune, excluded from offices, or from a power of vo- 
ting for proper persons to fill them, that man, whatever be the 
form of government, or whatever civil liberty or power over 
his own actions he may have, has no power over those of ano- 
ther. He has no share of the government, and therefore has no 
political liberty at all. Every man has an absolute and unal- 
ienable right to civil liberty; and for the security of it, political 
liberty should be extended as widely as possible. JVb man 
should be excluded from the exercise of it, excepting from circumstances 
of unavoidable necessity. It may appear, at first sight, to be of lit- 
tle consequence whether persons in the common ranks of life 
enjoy any share of political liberty or not. But without this, 
there cannot be that persuasion of security and independence, 
which alone can encourage a man to make great exertions. 
A man who is sensible that he is at the disposal of others, 
over whose conduct he has no sort of control, has always 
some unknown evil to dread. He will be afraid of attracting 
the notice of his superiors, and must feel himself a mean and 
degraded being. But a sense of liberty, and a knowledge of 
the laws by which his conduct must be governed, with some 
degree of control over those who make and administer the 
laws, give him a constant feeling of his own importance, and 
lead him to indulge a free and manly turn of thinking, which 
will make him greatly superior to what he would have been 
under an arbitrary form of government." This is the lan- 
guage of a foreign writer, the subject of a monarchical gov- 
ernment. If it be sound and just in its application to such a 
srovernment, it has tenfold force in a country with institu- 



37 

tions like our own. We see that a man may be civilly free 
and politically a slave. An absolute despot may dispense 
wise laws to his subjects, and maintain them with impartiali- 
ty. It is especially his interest to guard the right of proper- 
ty, since every addition to the national wealth adds to his 
own resources and to the strength and splendor of his govern- 
ment. But there is no security for the continuance of this pro- 
tection; and it is in the power of a despotic successor to over- 
turn all previously established laws, to stop the general 
transfer of property, and to constitute himself, as the present 
sovereign of Egypt has done, the sole merchant in his own 
dominions. Of course we do not mean to intimate that any 
similar gross abuse of power has ever been perpetrated in this 
State; but, before leaving this part of the subject, we would 
ask one practical question, namely, whether there has ever 
been any reason to suspect in our Legislature, chosen as it 
is, any tendency to lean toward this or that interest in the 
State, at the expense of others. 

But not only is our present restrictive system opposed to 
the fundamental principles of a Republican Government, but 
it is in violation of the real intentions of those who founded 
our State, and procured the Charter of Charles II. It was 
declared at the first session of the General Assembly, in the 
year 1647, that the Government of the State should be a De- 
mocracy, that is to say a Rule of the People. That Rule 
was perfectly consistent, at the foundation of the State, and 
long after, with a landed qualification. It was then in this 
State, as it is now in our newly settled western States ; — 
he who did not own land, owned nothing. A man who goes 
to settle in Missouri is a purchaser of land, as a matter of 
course. If he be a mechanic, he must, nevertheless, before 
he exercises his trade, make a clearing and set up his log 
hut. A few dollars, for the payment of which he has credit 
perhaps, will purchase a considerable estate. If a landed 
qualification were introduced into several of the western 
States, it would not much diminish the number of voters, 
who now vote upon a more extended plan. It was very 
much the same in the early days of Rhode-Island. Landed 
property was not only the principal property of the citizens, 



S3 

but was so easily attainable, that a landed qualification for 
voters excluded only a small portion of the people from po- 
litical power. But the condition of things has changed: the 
towns have changed. New interests have sprung up; and 
there are now great numbers of our most honest, industrious 
and useful citizens, who own no land, but who contribute by 
their occupations, and by the payment of taxes to the extent 
of their means, their proportionate measure to the public 
welfare. Yet these men have no voice in the government 
which they contribute to support: being excluded upon the 
false notion, that landed property is the only kind that is de- 
cisive of a man's intelligence and honesty. Look at the 
hardship of the case of a mechanic, for instance. He has 
received a common education; he has served as a journey- 
man, and is now about to commence business for himself, 
with some small earnings of his own. His savings are only 
sufficient to procure the implements of his trade. After fair- 
ly starting in life on his own account, he becomes anxious to 
provide for himself a home. He marries; he hires a tene- 
ment; in the course of time, he acquires more money, which 
his interest demands should be invested in the stock of his 
trade. He is fully able to purchase one hundred and thirty- 
four dollars worth of land; but it is, in most cases, against 
his interest to do so, until he can purchase a great deal more. 
In the mean time, he is debarred from the polls; and if he 
ask why, the answer must be, that the non-freeholders are 
too ignorant or dishonest to be trusted in so important a mat- 
ter as voting. This we believe is a fair statement of the 
case of hundreds of mechanics in this State; of exactly how 
many hundreds, we are not now able to say, but we hope to 
lay this information before you at some future time. The 
people of this State cannot be aware of the real operation of 
the present system, or they would long since have applied a 
corrective. Take some examples of the way in which this 
system works. 

"In 1830 there were, in the town of North-Providence, 
779 male inhabitants over 21 years of age; of whom 200 were 
free-holders, leaving 579 non-freeholders. In 1 832, 66 of the non- 
freeholders were taxed for about $ 50.000 worth of property. 



39 

The amount of their taxes was $ 140. This tax was levied 
on those only who kept stores, or who were known to have 
property; while there were probably three times that number, 
whose bank-stock and other property amounted to as much 
more, unknown to the assessors. There are residing in 
Pawtucket five patriots of the Revolution, who have no voice 
in any of the affairs of the town or State." 

" In Providence 65 non-freeholders alone have lately paid a 
tax of 1078 dollars; and 361, including- the 65, a tax of 1810 
dollars." — (Some eldest sons are included in this list.) 

"In Cumberland there are 210 tax-payers who have no 
vote. 280 persons voted at the last election in that town." 

" In Warren there are 136 freeholders, natives of this State, 
and 49 resident freeholders, natives of other States. In 1833, 
79 non-freeholders were assessed $ 156.42." 

But this restriction is not merely burdensome upon traders 
and mechanics. How fare the younger sons of farmers ? True 
a sort of virtue is transmitted from the land-owner, but it 
reaches no farther than the first-born son. We have but a 
word to say about that remnant of the right of primogeni- 
ture, the privilege of the eldest son to vote. If we had a 
franchise to give away, and the question was, which of the 
sons in a family should have it, there would be many good 
reasons for preferring the eldest. But the real question is, 
why either of the sons, or any other person, should be ex- 
empted from the general law of qualification, whatever it 
may be. No good reason has been, nor can be given. 

But the farmer himself does not escape the effect of the 
present law. Misfortune may overtake him, and he may be 
obliged to mortgage his estate; perhaps to some non-freehold- 
er, who has accumulated his earnings, and has something to 
lend. The moment the mortgagee goes into possession, the 
farmer's former capacity and competency literally fall to the 
ground: he is no longer fit to be trusted with a vote; and the 
non-freeholder, who was before not to be trusted, becomes 
all at once invested with the dignity and immunities of a 
freeman. But industry retrieves the farmer's losses, and he 
redeems his estate. His intelligence and trustworthiness re- 
turn upon him by the magic of his title deed; and the hapless 



40 

wight, who has thus been indulged with the brief fruition 
of political privileges, shrinks away, all at once, into his form- 
er insignificance. What does such a farmer think about suf- 
frage ? 

Take the three professions of lav/, divinity and medicine. 
The majority of lawyers,* clergymen and physicians, f as a 
body, certainly are not landholders; and yet we freely en- 
trust our property, our consciences and our lives to men, 
who, the law says, are too ignorant and corrupt to vote 
for a constable ! — We feel a proper respect for the land- 
holders of this State. A great part of this Convention are 
landholders. We are happy to see that so much of the good 
old fashioned spirit of the primitive times has been transmit- 
ted to our own through the farming interest. But notwith- 

*In October, 1718, it was enacted by the General Assembly, tbat 
no person should have " in any one cause above two attorneys," and 
that one of them should be "a freeholder, a freeman, and an inhabi- 
tant in this colony." 

In October, 1729, an act was passed "restricting all lawyers from 
being chosen deputies (to the General Assembly) of any towns in this 
Colony, during their practicing the law." It was repealed at the Feb- 
ruary session succeeding, having been found, as is stated in the pream- 
ble to the repealing act. "to be of ill consequence, and inconsistent 
with the right of his Majesty's subjects in this colony." A marvelous 
sense of justice ! 

It cannot be necessary to do moreihan allude to a more recent act 
of the Legislature, imposing a special tax on members of the legal pro- 
fession ; — to a vote excluding them from seats at the bar of the House 
of Representatives ; — and to a vote depriving insolvent petitioners of 
the benefit of argument by counsel, upon the trial of their petitions. 

fin October, 174S, a fine of 100 pounds, " for every such offence," 
was imposed on any physician, who should refuse or neglect to obey 
the orders of the governor, and a list of other state and town officers, 
in their attempt to prevent the spreading of a* contagious disease. On 
turning to a previous law (of 1743) to ascertain what could be requir- 
ed of a physician, it appears that the abovementioned officers, might, at 
their pleasure, send him, or any other " suitable person" on board of 
an infected vessel, without any regard to his own inclination. Medi- 
cal men, to their great honor, have, with rare exceptions, been ready, 
in all times of pestilence and calamity, to sacrifice their health and to 
risk their lives in the service of the public : and this compulsory pro- 
cess is unjust to their rights and character, and ill suited to their leel- 
ings. The act does not specify whether any distinction shall be made 
between freeholders and non-freeholders in this case. The penalty 
has. been changed. from 100 pounds to 40 dollars ; and now stands at 
that sum. — We have had some strange laws in this " Government." 



41 

standing the just estimation in which we hold this interest, 
that we should say, or believe that all the intelligence, hon- 
esty and patriotism in the State resides with them, is too 
much for their modesty to ask, or for our sense of justice to 
concede. 

We see then, that a landed qualification operates, at the 
present day, very differently from what it did in early times. 
If one of those ancestors who voted for "Democracy," in 
1647, could speak to us from the tombs, would he counsel 
us to rescind that vote, and change the name, — or to correct 
that legislation by which it has become a dead letter? We 
can be at no loss for an answer to this question. 

If we look at the Charter, and the early laws relating to 
Freemen, we shall see still more clearly how opposed the 
present law is to the true intention of our predecessors. The 
Charter vests the election of freemen in the General Assem- 
bly, and prescribes no qualification. The Company being a land 
Company, with powers of government annexed, and having 
in view to improve and settle their territory as fast as possi- 
ble, it would have been natural for them, independently of 
the reason that landed property was then almost the only 
property, to prefer such members as would take an interest 
in the cultivation of the soil. The Company was empowered 
by the Charter to transport to the Colony, for its plantation 
and defense, such persons as might be willing to accompany 
them; and the emigrants became farmers, as a matter of 
course. The Assembly, therefore, in favorably regarding 
the agricultural interest, evidently had no political design; 
and practiced no restriction, in the sense in which a landed 
requisite is one, at the present time. The requisite of ad- 
mission was not made a political instrument till long after. 
There is reason to believe that they looked more to the fit- 
ness of the person proposed for admission, than to his prop- 
erty in land; though almost every decent person in those 
times was a land owner of course. There were inhabitants 
not freemen, but their number must have been small. To 
show the sense of the Legislature on the subject of qualifica- 
tions, we ask your attention to some of their Acts. 

The Act of March 1663-4 declared " That all persons what- 
soever, that are inhabitants within this Colony, and admit- 



42 

ted freemen of the same, shall and may have liberty to vote 
for the electing of all the general officers in this Colony, &c. 
as is expressed in the Charter of the Colony." 

It also enacted " That no person shall be elected to the 
place of a deputy to sit in the General Assembly of this Col- 
ony, but those that are freeholders therein, and freemen of 
the same." 

In the same year it was farther declared " That all men 
professing- Christianity, and of competent estates, * and of civ- 
il conversation, who acknowledge and are obedient to the 
civil magistrate, though of different judgments in religious 
affairs (Roman Catholics only excepted)! shall be admitted 
freemen," and be permitted to choose officers, and to be eli- 
gible to office. 

No estate of any kind is required by the first act; and none 
of any fixed value by the last, to make a freeman. It prob- 
ably varied, both in kind and quantity, with the opinion en- 
tertained by the Assembly of the applicant's character and 
demeanor. It is important to notice the distinction made 
between the electors and those who might be elected depu- 
ties to the General Assembly. The electors were to be free- 
men, — admitted at first without any specified qualification, 
and next upon having " competent" estates: — the deputies 
must have estates in land, — be freeholders, and freemen. 

The Act of 1665 continues the qualification of " competent 
estates," without defining them. (Page 154 of old record.) 

In 1666 it was enacted, that the freemen of each town shall 
have "full power granted them to admit so many persons, 
inhabitants of their respective towns, freemen of their towns, 
as shall be by them adjudged deserving thereof." It was 
made the duty of the town-clerks of all the towns, once a year, 
to send a list of all the freemen admitted in their respective 
towns to the General Assembly, the day before the election; 
and of the general recorder to enroll in the Colony's Book 

* Previously to the grant of the present Charter, there was no other 
requisite for admission than that of " being found meet for the service 
of the body" politic ; — a body, by the way, into which our ancestors 
first incorporated themselves, by natural and equal suffrage. 

t See note to page 17. 



43 

" such persons that shall be so returned, and admitted free- 
men of the Colony."* 

The desert here spoken of must have been good character, 
and usefulness to the Colony. The towns might and no 
doubt did consider some to be deserving of admission who 
owned no land, and others to be unfit who did. 

It was enacted in 1724, that no person should be admitted 
a freeman, unless he were a freeholder of lands, &c. of the 
value of 100 pounds, or to the value of 40 shillings a year; 
or the eldest son of such a freeholder: "any other act, custom or 
usage to the contrary hereof notwithstanding." 

In 1730 it was enacted "That no person whatsoever 
shall be admitted a freeman of any town in this Colony un- 
less he be a freeholder of lands, &c. to the value of 200 pounds, 
or 10 pounds per annum; or, the eldest son of such a free- 
holder." 

In 1742, it was farther declared, that no person shall be 
admitted to vote, but such only, who, at the time of voting, 
are freemen, and possessed of land, &c. as above. 

The preamble of the Act of 1746 complains of the inroad 
of bribery and corruption into the Colony; and gives as the 
occasion of it, the manner of admitting freemen, which "is 
so lax, and their qualifications, as to their estates, so very low, 
that many persons are admitted, who are possessed of little 
or no property." The remedy of the evil (whether real or 
pretended by the leading politicians to cover their design, 
we need not now inquire) consisted in raising the qualifica- 
tion to 400 pounds value, or 20 pounds rent per annum; with- 
out which no one was " allowed to vote or act as a freeman." 

The qualification of voters was changed again in 1762; and 

*It appears that there was an intermediate step between the practice of 
electing freemen wholly by the General Assembly, and afterward wholly 
by the towns. This is more clearly explained in the manuscript Digest 
of 1719. The phraseology of the act of 1668 there varies greatly from 
that of the printed act. At pages 35 and 36, it is enacted " That every 
town, at their town-meeting, hath power to make such men freemen of 
their towns as they shall judge may be meet, and may be serviceable 
to serve in the towns, in town offices." The act goes on to say, that 
all such persons may then vote for town-officers ; and that after their 
names shall have been presented to the General Assembly, and they 
"pass by vote to allow them freemen of the colony," they may vote 
for general officers. 



44 

it was enacted, that no person whatever should be permitted 
to vote, or act as a freeman, but such only as were possessed 
of a real estate of the value of 40 pounds, or which shall 
rent for 40 shillings per annum. 

It is sufficiently evident from this brief examination, that a 
freeman was not necessarily a freeholder ; and that the mode 
of admitting freemen previously to the act of 1724, (which act 
for the first time in the colony established an exclusive freehold qualifi- 
cation) was entirely irregular: and the language used about 
its laxity, and the lowness of qualifications, and the allusion 
in the act of 1724, to " a custom or usage to the contrary" of 
what was then enacted, show that the restriction had been 
merely nominal. — There is another important fact apparent 
from the acts raising the qualification to two and four hun- 
dred pounds, namely, that a distinction was thus made among 
the freemen themselves. All persons (previously freemen, or 
not, it made no difference) who did not come up to the sum 
of two and four hundred pounds, were, by these acts, depri- 
ved of their privileges. The acts of 1742 — 46 and 62, di- 
rected, not merely who should be admitted freemen in fu- 
ture, but also who should cease to act as such.* This un- 
making of freemen, or depriving them, without proof of crime, 
of every thing but the mere name, was a clear violation of 
the spirit of the Charter, and goes, in addition to the remarks 
already made upon the operation of that instrument, to show 
how little it was practically regarded in the business of leg- 
islation, and that the General Assembly then exercised, as 
now, an undefined power, similar to that of the Parliament 
of England. " If representatives of the people," it has been 
well said, u chosen for the ordinary purposes of legislation, 
could assume a control over this right (the rignt of suffrage) 
to limit, curtail, or extend it at will, they might disfranchise 
any portion they pleased of their own electors; might deprive 
them of the power ever to remove them; and thus reduce 
the government to a permanent aristocracy." 

The existing restriction on suffrage is then, we think, clear- 
ly in opposition to the real intention of our ancestors, and to 

*Our Statute-Book, at the present day, does not prescribe in direct 
terms who shall be freemen ; but who shall not vote or act as such. 
The law on its very face is an excluding rather than an enabling act. 



45 

the spirit of the Democracy which they established. We 
have already seen that it excludes many who pay taxes: it 
is farther objectionable, because it occasions those taxes to 
be imposed without consent and without any control of their 
expenditure. It was this same evil to which our fathers re- 
fused to submit and which led to the Revolutionary contest. 
It is still an evil though visited upon a large portion of the 
people by their own fellow-citizens. If it were unjust for 
our forefathers to be taxed without representation, it is 
equally unjust for their descendents to be so taxed by their 
brethren, as long as they have no voice in determining either 
the quantity or appropriation. How, let it be asked, are the 
duties on those articles of foreign importation, which are con- 
sumed in this State, paid ? By the body of the consumers, 
who consist as well of non-freeholders as of the owners of 
the soil. The expenses of the General Government, as we 
well know, are paid without any resort to direct taxation. 
The non-freeholders pay their full proportion to government 
in the shape of duties, and yet they have no part in national 
affairs ; because those only can vote for Representatives to 
Congress, who are voters for members of the most popular 
branch of the State Legislature. And these voters are ex- 
clusively the owners of the soil. This injustice is so palpa- 
ble, that we think it must extort the confession of all who 
give it a moment's attention. Ought it not to be remedied ? 

The objection that the non-freeholders, if admitted, will 
vote away the money of other people, comes with a very ill 
grace from those who are now voting away the money of 
these very non-freeholders, without their consent. 

The present system is also inconsistent with itself. It ex- 
cludes intelligent and upright men from the polls, because 
their business is such, that the possession of the requisite 
landed qualification is impracticable. And yet in many in- 
stances they are bound to the soil by a species of real proper- 
ty, consisting in houses, workshops, &c. built upon land leas- 
ed to them for a term of years. A life estate entitles a man 
to vote : a lease for 99 years does not. Is this consistency ? 

Again, — the present system of voting is opposed to the 
spirit of the Constitution of the United States. That Con- 
7 



46 

stitution contemplates no such distinction among the citi- 
zens as our law creates. It guaranties to each State a republi- 
can form of government; the very nature of which is to extend 
the right of voting to a majority of its citizens. If we ven- 
erate that instrument, why should we any longer withhold 
those privileges which it intends to confer ? 

Another objection to our law of restriction, is, that it is op- 
posed to the theory and practice of all the other states with 
a single partial exception. In North-Carolina, a freehold is 
still required to vote for a Senator. This is now the only re- 
maining state in which the right to vote for any officer is 
confined exclusively to landholders. 

The following is a Table of the Qualifications of voters in 
all the States, derived from a careful examination of each of 
their Constitutions. 

Maine. Citizenship of the United States, and three 
months' (next preceding) state residence. Untaxed Indians 
excluded. 

New-Hampshire. Inhabitance and payment of taxes. 

Massachusetts. Citizenship : one year's state, and six 
months' (next preceding) town or district residence, and pay- 
ment of taxes. 

Connecticut. Citizenship of the United States, and set- 
tlement in the State, with a freehold of 7 dollars yearly value, 
and six months' preceding town residence — or, a year's 
performance of military duty — or, the payment of taxes, 
with good moral character. Blacks excluded. 

Vermont. One year's (next previous) residence, with 
quiet and peaceable behavior, and an oath to vote according 
to conscience "touching any matter that concerns the 
State." 

Rhode-Island. Inhabitance in town where vote is offered^ 
with real estate to the full value of 134 dollars, or, which 
shall rent for 7 dollars per annum — or, being the eldest son 
of a freeholder to the same amount. Voting by writing name 
on back of ticket, — same in effect as viva voce. Blacks excluded. 

New-York. Citizenship, with one year's state and six 
months (next previous) town or county residence — and pay- 
ment of a tax within the year preceding an election, unless 



47 

exempted — or, performance of military duty within that year, 
unless exempted — or, performance of labor upon the high- 
ways, (unless an equivalent has been paid) with three years' 
next preceding state and one (the last) year's town or coun- 
ty residence. For men of color, three years' citizenship of 
the State, with a freehold of the value of 250 dollars, owned 
for one year preceding an election, and having paid a tax 
thereon. 

New-Jersey. One year's (immediately preceding) county 
residence, and being worth 50 pounds proclamation money. 

Pennsylvania. Two years (next previous) residence, and 
payment of a state or county tax, assessed at least six months 
before an election. Sons of voters allowed to vote between 
the ages of 21 and 22 years without having paid taxes. 
. Delaware. Citizenship, with one year's (next preceding) 
state and the last month's county residence, and payment of 
a tax assessed six months before an election. Citizens allow- 
ed to vote between the ages of 21 and 22 years without hay- 
ing paid a tax. Blacks excluded. 

Maryland. Citizenship, with one year's state, and six 
months (next preceding) county residence. Blacks excluded. 

Virginia. Citizenship and residence — with a freehold 
qualification, according to the former Constitution — or, a 
freehold of the value of 25 dollars — or, a reversion in land 
of the value of 50 dollars — or, the occupancy of a leasehold 
estate, of a term originally not less than five years, at a rent 
of 20 dollars a year — or, lastly, having been a housekeeper 
and head of a family for 12 months next preceding, in the 
place where application is made to vote, and having paid a 
state-tax within the preceding year. Voting viva voce.-*- 
B lacks excluded. 

North-Carolina. To vote for Senators, one year's (im- 
mediately preceding) residence in any one county, and a 
freehold, within the same county, of fifty acres of land, held 
for six months next previous, and at the day of election. — To 
vote for members of the House of Commons, one year's (im- 
mediately preceding) residence in any one county, and hav- 
ing paid public taxes. 



43 

South-Carolina. Citizenship and two years' state resi- 
dence previous to the day of election, with a freehold of fifty 
acres of land, or a town lot, legally possessed at least six 
months previous, — or, without a freehold, having* been a 
resident in the election district where the vote is offered six 
months previous. Blacks excluded. 

Georgia. Citizenship and inhabitance, with six months 
county residence, and the payment of taxes, if assessed, for 
the year preceding an election. Voting viva voce. 

Ohio. A residence of one year next preceding an election, 
and being assessed to pay a state or county tax, — or, labor- 
ing on the roads. Blacks excluded. 

Kentucky. Citizenship, with two years state, or one 
year's (next preceding) town or county residence. Voting 
viva voce. Blacks, Mulattos and Indians excluded. 

Tennessee. Inhabitance in the state, and a freehold in 
the county where the vote is offered, — or, inhabitance in 
any one county, six months immediately preceding the day 
of election. 

Mississippi. Citizenship of the United States, with one 
year's (next preceding) state, and the last six months' coun- 
ty or town residence, and enrolment in the militia, — or, hav- 
ing paid a state or county tax. Blacks excluded. 

Alabama. Citizenship of the United States, with one year's 
(next preceding) state, and the last three months' county or 
town residence. Blacks excluded. 

Louisiana. Citizenship of the United States, with one 
year's (next preceding) county residence, and the payment 
of a state tax within the last six months prior to the election. 
Blacks excluded. 

Indiana. Citizenship of the United States, with one year's 
(next preceding) residence, entitles to vote in the county 
where resident. Blacks excluded. 

Illinois. Residence in state for six months next prece- 
ding an election entitles to vote in the county or district 
where resident. Voting viva voce. Blacks excluded. 

Missouri. Citizenship of the United States, with one 
year's (the next before) state, and the last three months 
county or district residence. Blacks excluded. 



49 

Those who call in question any natural right of suffrage, 
lay great stress upon the fact that in so many of these Con- 
stitutions* the qualifications of persons eligible to the offices 
of government are fixed much higher than those of the elec- 
tors themselves. They say that therefore political rights are 
not self-subsistent, but are derived from an arbitrary ap- 
pointment of the law-giver. We do not consider any such 
distinction to be necessary in this State, nor do we contend 
for it : audit is a sufficient answer to the objectors to say that 
where the distinction does exist, it was made by the people 
themselves, in their original, sovereign capacity. The con- 
stitutions of all the States proceeded from the great majority 
of the people, fairly represented in Convention. These con- 
stitutions were laid before them for acceptance, or rejection. 
They could and did define, limit and settle their own rights 
as they saw fit. The fact above stated so far then from 
proving any thing against the rights of the people, proves 
another thing conclusively in favor of the people, namely, — 
that in manifesting so much solicitude that all places of trust 
should be filled with those most competent to discharge their 
duties, and in thus foregoing an equal claim to them in all 
the voters, they have shown themselves the safe depository 
of political power, and eminently worthy of republican free- 
dom and self-government. 

We do not ask for a change here, merely because a re- 
striction like ours has been abolished in other States ; but 
because such a change is right. Still the fact that twenty- 
two, out of twenty-three, of the other States, have no such 
exclusive landed qualification as that now insisted upon in 
this, ought to go far in overcoming any doubts or scruples 
on the subject of an extension of suffrage. Are not the peo- 

*The States which have made landed property an indispensable re- 
quisite for the governor, senators and representatives are the follow- 
ing, — New-Hampshire, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, Tennessee, 
Louisiana and Mississippi. — In New- York, the governor and senators ; 
in New-Jersey, the legislative councilors and representatives; in Vir- 
ginia, the senators and representatives; and in Massachusetts and 
Georgia, the governor, — must be landholders. In the remaining thir- 
teen States no property in land is .exclusively required of any of the 
above mentioned officers. 



50 

pie of the other States our brethren ; are we not all bound 
tog-ether as one people, under the glorious Constitution of 
the United States ? Can the people of this State be expected 
to entertain any less liberal ideas of Republican freedom and 
government than the vast majority of their brethren else- 
where, who are united to them in interest and feeling, and 
separated only by the outline of State boundaries ? Such an 
expectation is unreasonable and contradicted by all observa- 
tion and experience. Are not the people of other States, 
who have adopted the plan of extension, as enlightened, as 
capable of understanding the greatest good of the whole, as 
much blest with sound laws and the wise execution of them, 
as ourselves ? Are we indebted to a landed suffrage for any 
decided superiority in our civil and social condition ? Have 
we gone farther than all others, in proportion to our means, 
in providing for public instruction, and public charities ? We 
are obliged reluctantly to admit the contrary. Not to pursue 
this part of our subject any farther, at present — let any man 
point to any one practical result in this State, which gives 
an advantage to a landed qualification for voters over that of 
the payment of taxes, and we shall be happy to give it a fair 
consideration, and allow to it all the weight to which it may 
be entitled. 

One of the reasons offered in favor of a freehold qualifica- 
tion is that it tends to a greater division of land, and to 
check the increase of great landed estates. Even admitting 
this to be true, the remedy is not wanted, for it has already 
been supplied by the statute of distributions. The right of 
primogeniture as it respects property has been done away. 
An equal division most commonly takes place at the death 
of a parent ; and it is perfectly well known that the third, or 
fourth generation at most, in this country, scatters the 
greatest accumulation that the industry and economy of the 
ancestor is ever able to make. Property is divided and 
equalized in our country to an extent never known in any 
other. And the interest in property, of some kind or other, 
thus created in the majority of the people is one reason, and 
a strong one, for believing that our form of government will 
be permanent, In no State, which lias exchanged the land- 



51 

ed for a tax qualification, has there been the slightest com- 
plaint of too great an accumulation of land in a few hands 
from this cause. The argument is evidently more for the 
benefit of the present suffrage law, than for the benefit of the 
people. 

What then is the object of any property qualification at all 
for a voter ? The only just object is to raise a presumption of 
his honesty and intelligence. Where this honesty and intelli- 
gence can be ascertained, independently of a particular qual- 
ification, there the necessity of it ceases. Men of all opin- 
ions readily say, in the discussion of the question of suffrage, 
we should be perfectly willing to let in all honest and intel- 
ligent persons to vote, whether they have property or not, 
if we could only ascertain them. The man of substance is 
not admitted to vote, upon any property qualification which 
may be adopted, because he is a man of substance, but be- 
cause his qualification raises the necessary presumption in 
his favor. If the law merely regarded the voter's substance, 
then the more substantial he might be, the more power 
should he have as a voter. If this were the spirit of a law 
relating to the elective right, then, to be consistent, we ought 
to go back to the plan adopted by one of the kings of ancient 
Rome, who divided the voters into classes and centuries, in 
such a way, that though each man had but one vote, yet 
the men of substance had the most centuries, and so con- 
trolled the elections. But how does property, or the ability 
to pay a tax, which implies property, and amounts to the 
same thing, raise an inference of a man's honesty and intel- 
ligence ? Only in this way; if a man inherit property, the pre- 
sumption is, judging by the natural feelings of men, that the 
parent who left it to him, was able and willing to give him 
education enough to use it properly: if a man have acquired 
property, the presumption is, and must be, as a general rule, 
that industry and probity were exercised by him in so doing, 
and that the cares and relations, which property brings with 
it, have sharpened his faculties, and increased his natural 
intelligence. Now all we ask, is, that every man among us 
who can be fairly presumed to be honest and intelligent 
enough to exercise the privilege of a voter, consistently with 



52 

the best good of our whole population, should be admitted to 
that privilege. And we propose such a qualification as will 
raise, in our condition of society, the presumption of honesty 
and intelligence: and if a certain minimum, or smallest sum, 
were fixed, so that every one who chose to pay a tax on not 

less than dollars should become a voter, all pretence of 

objection, on account of the supposed control the assessors 
of taxes might have over elections would be entirely re- 
moved. 

A strict registration of voters we consider indispensable: and 
voting by ballot, so that it could not be known how the vote 
was given, would remove the objection of improper influence. 
We are very desirous to see it introduced. 

The distinction proposed between the qualifications of the 
native and the naturalized citizen is founded on the princi- 
ple already laid down, viz. that the abridgment or suspen- 
sion of a political right to promote the greatest good of the 
greatest number, and for that purpose only, is the self-pre- 
serving law of a political society. The restriction places the 
foreign born citizen in a better condition than the present 
freeholder; as he is only required to have been once the own- 
er of a freehold, for a certain leng'th of time, to be determi- 
ned by the framers of a Constitution. The non-freeholders 
are willing and anxious to be tried by this law of the great- 
est good. The moment it can be shown that their claim of 
privilege is inconsistent with the greatest good of the whole 
community, they are willing to withdraw it. But let it be 
so shown. 

It is a mistake in any to suppose that this restriction is at 
variance with any provision in the Constitution of the United 
States. When the Constitution says that "the citizens of 
each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities 
of citizens in the several States," it does not mean that 
they shall carry their rights with them from one State to 
another, but that they shall accept of such as are provided 
in the State to which they have removed their residence, 
and be subject to all distinctions there established. 

There are some who consider themselves as making 1 a re- 
ply to the arguments which have been offered, by afiirming 



53 

that " No one ought to interfere with the rules and usages 
of a land Company" ! What idea such persons can have of 
the nature of the government of this country, or of any gov- 
ernment it would not be easy to determine. " The rules and 
usages of a land company, "both civil and political, must then 
prevail for ever in Rhode-Island, whether right or wrong. 
We hope to be able on all occasions to manifest a becoming 
resignation to the appointments of Divine Providence; but 
we have not any such respect for the decrees and ordinances 
of men, no better than ourselves, as to believe, or admit that 
in political affairs, " whatever is is right." The " rules and 
usages of a land company" maybe very convenient for those 
who hold power and desire to keep it; but they have no recom- 
mendations of justice or policy to others who are kept out of 
possession of their proper share of that power, though they 
have a permanent interest in the State, and are not destitute 
of a patriotic attachment to their native land.* The colonists 
of Rhode-Island were indeed a land company; but they were 
endowed with political privileges, and have exercised the 
usual functions of government : and for what purpose gov- 
ernment was made, and who ought to partake in it, we have 
already seen. The friends of reform do not ask, nor do they 
consider themselves answered by being informed, how old 
their government is. Their question is whether it be right 
or wrong. If an attempt were made to get possession of the 
shares of a trading, banking, insurance, or, if you please, of 
a land company, without the payment of an equivalent, then 
there would be just reason for protesting against this inva- 
sion of chartered and vested rights. If such an attempt 
should be made, those who are aggrieved will find complete 
protection in the strong arm of the law. 

We would ask of those, who contend that every thing should 
remain in this generation, as it came to us from the prece- 
ding, one or two questions. Suppose that some eminent in- 

" * It is a subject for reflection, that, while some of the descendents of 
the early settlers of the State have no vote in the places of their fathers, 
any one may come in from abroad, and upon the purchase of real es- 
tate, and being propounded three months previously, may become a vo- 
ter. We welcome strangers, but not to greater privileges than are 
enjoyed by the majority of our own citizens, 
8 



54 

dividual in England* had been employed to draw up a form of 
government for the Colony of Rhode-Island, and that for the 
sake of conformity with the institutions of the mother coun- 
try, he had introduced a provision into the Charter to the 
effect, that the offices of governor, deputy-governor, and of the 
assistants should forever be confined to the male descen- 
dents of Arnold, Williams, Olney, and the other persons who 
were named in the Charter, to fill them for the first time. 
Suppose farther, that this hereditary senatef had not been 
abolished at the Revolution, but that it had continued to our 
own time: would you now advocate it ; and if so, might you not 
say that it was established by the original law of a " land com- 
pany," confirmed by usage, and too venerable to be disturbed? 
If opposed to it, would you not say, however determined the 
senators might be never to surrender their hereditary privi- 
leges, that there ought to be and must be some way of vot- 
ing them down ? — To add one more question, — What is the 
meaning of the clause in the Constitution of the United 
States which guaranties to each State a Republican form of 
government ? Is it not, that no Constitution, law, nor usage 
of any State, however agreeable to the majority, shall ever 
be suffered to compel the submission of a minority to a form 
of government in any respect anti-republican ? If the minor- 
ity in every State be thus taken care of, most assuredly any 
expression of the will of the majority, not inconsistent with 
the definition of a republic will be recognized by the General 
Government, ^ 

It is a great mistake to say that the prescription in favor 
of the present order of things has never been disturbed. At 
about the commencement of the Revolution, the General 
Assembly manifested their sense of the necessity of some 
change by the appointment of a Committee to report upon 

* The Constitution prepared for the State of South-Carolina by the 
celebrated Locke can hardly be deemed to have created any exception 
to the statement before made, that no privileged order of men had 
ever existed in this country ; since that constitution was found to be 
totally impracticable, and was abrogated in 1693, after a duration of 
only 23 years. 

f It is one of the very remarkable features of our State government 
that the Senate is the more popular branch of the Legislature. 



55 

a proper form of Government for the State. No report, it is 
believed, was ever made. Other attempts, both for partial 
and general reform, have been unsuccessful; and the evils of 
the body politic have been suffered to accumulate. 

But it ought to be borne in mind that no continuance of 
usage, or prescription however long, can impair, nor take 
away political rights from the people. From the ancient En- 
glish maxim, " Time does not run against the king," erase 
the word " king" and insert " People," and you have a great 
and everlasting truth. No delay or acquiescence on their 
part can ever make it right to govern wrong, or to deprive 
any man of a voice in public affairs, who is sufficiently honest 
and intelligent to use it well. 

We have seen that our existing freehold qualification for 
voters is inconsistent with a just regard to natural rights,- — 
that it is opposed to the principles of a Republican Govern- 
ment, — to the real intentions of the founders of this State, — 
to the Declaration of American Independence, — to the spirit 
of the Constitution of the United States, — to the practice of 
all the other States, but one; — that it is inconsistent with it- 
self, and unfair in its operation. Still farther, — admitting, 
for argument's sake, (and God forbid that we should ever 
otherwise make the admission, so long as we retain any re- 
collection of the Declaration of Independence, and of the 
Principles, the Acts and the Men of the Revolution) that 
there are no natural rights, and that all political power and 
privilege proceeds from the Government to the People, — the 
present landed qualification is proved to be highly unneces- 
sary and inexpedient. — But there are many who are capable 
of feeling the force of these objections, who will call them 
abstract and theoretical, and say that they want more 
facts. We want them too; and we ask these objectors to go 
along with us in the search, bearing in mind, at the same time, 
that, as the freehold restriction is in derogation of political 
rights, the burden of proving its necessity rests upon its ad- 
vocates. We have come to the great Issue of Fact, which we 
now again tender to our fellow-citizens, and it is — Are those 
citizens, who by an extension of suffrage would be admitted 
to vote, such a class of persons as are unfitted by their charac- 



56 

ter to participate in the political privileges which they claim? 
We wish thus question to be fairly met. Enough has been 
said, in vague and general terms, about " unwholesome citizens" 
" persons not to be safely trusted," " without property and vi- 
cious," — about, "protecting the sound part of the community 
against those who have nothing at stake in society" — " and 
protecting the people against intruders and adventurers from 
other States." It is perfectly easy to make this general 
declamation, and it has its natural and designed effect upon 
too many minds. Let those who use this language come 
out and say, if they will venture the assertion, that the body of 
traders and mechanics, and professional men, and sons of land i wider s, 
are the base and corrupt persons who are aimed at in these sweeping 
denunciations. No others can be meant. They are the men 
who unite with a large portion of the farming interest in de- 
manding a reform. Shame, then, upon those defamers of 
their fellow-citizens, who, in the interested defense of a de- 
crepid and tottering system, resort to this wanton and un- 
manly abuse and disparagement, which the daily business 
and intercourse of life prove to be wholly destitute of founda- 
tion in truth. We shall endeavor to show the people, more 
in detail, who these men are, who now claim the establish- 
ment of their just rights, and how many of them contribute by 
taxes to the public treasury. We invite you, fellow-citizens, 
to go along with us, and to aid us in the investigation. 

But there is one charge made against the friends of reform 
which ought not to be passed by without a more particular 
notice. It is said by some that they are urging on a w r ar 
against property, and, stirring up the poor against the rich. 
Was there ever a more unfounded and ungenerous accusa- 
tion? God forbid that we should ever fall so low as to be ca- 
pable of resorting to this last and basest expedient of decay- 
ed and desperate politicians. The poor against the rich\ in a 
country where all interests and classes are combined and in- 
terwoven in mutual dependence, and rise and prosper, or de- 
cline and fall together. Does any one seek to take away any 
right from others and to appropriate it anew? It will be 
time to throw out such a suggestion when it is made to ap- 
pear that an attempt to obtain the exercise of his own 
rights is robbery from other people, — and not till then. 



The subject of the Jcdiciart, though last in the order of 
consideration, is not. the least in magnitude and importance. 
In introducing tins subject, it is proper to state a single 
fact ; and we believe that no comment is required. The 
fact is this, — that while the most numerous portion of the 
present freemen are averse to any change in the Judicia- 
ry, those who are now excluded from the polls are in favor 
of it. 

The improvement of our Courts of law will be an essential 
provision in any Constitution that may be hereafter planned 
for this State. Independence in the judge is essential both 
to the formation of the best judicial character, and to the 
best administration of justice. A judge should sit serenely 
above all the storms of political strife, that he may rightly 
divide the justice of the law T between man and man: he should 
have nothing to hope from party ascendency, and nothing to 
fear from the fall of political friends. A judge, however hon- 
est he may be, is in great danger of having his impartiality 
called in question in deciding a case, or instructing a jury, 
when one of the litigants has been recently placed shoulder 
to shoulder with him, in a warm contest for victory. The 
public good cannot be properly consulted, whenever less at- 
tention is paid to the qualifications of men to sit and decide 
as judges, than to services rendered to the appointing power. 

The necessity of a well defined and independent Judiciary 
is more fully appreciated, when we remember that the Legis- 
lature of this State in many instances act as a court of jus- 
tice. Under their oath of office as legislators they assume 
the responsibility of judges. They in fact legislate concern- 
ing particular facts upon rules and principles unknown to the 
common law . If they can do so in one instance, they may do 
so in others.* They may dispense with that palladium of 
liberty, the trial by jury, and erect themselves into a tribu- 
nal to decide both upon the law and the facts. 

If there be any one sight more unpleasant than another, 
it is that of a political judge acting alternately as an adminis- 
trator of the laws and the manager of a party. And yet the 

* The practice of appointing special judges for particular cases, 
which has existed in this State; is highly improper and dangerous. 



53 

fault is all your own. You drive him to the necessity of man- 
agement in order to retain a place which is opened once a 
year to new competitors. 

A Court appointed daring good behavior and receiving a 
fixed and competent support, is indispensably necessary as 
the sheet-anchor of a Constitution. It affords a constant 
barrier against encroachments of the legislative and execu- 
tive powers, either upon the boundaries of each other, or 
upon the rights of the citizen. So far from admitting that 
the acts of the Legislature could not be called in question, it 
would be the arbitrator between the people and their repre- 
sentatives ; between those who make laws and those who 
are called on to submit to them. The poorest possible of all 
economy is that which places the salaries of judges, and law- 
officers generally, so low, that few men of the first rate quali- 
fications can be induced to abandon the superior emoluments 
of private practice. The money which is annually expend- 
ed upon protracted litigation in this State greatly exceeds 
the amount of the most liberal salaries that could ever be de- 
sired for our Courts. This loss to the people is never taken 
into the account in estimating the cost of cheap Justice. — 
In 1729 the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas in this 
State were appointed during good behavior. The act regu- 
lating their term of appointment was repealed four years af- 
ter, in 1733 ;* and they were afterward chosen annually. 
We want a fundamental law, which shall place their term of 
office out of the reach of every body but the power that 
makes and unmakes Constitutions. If you object to indepen- 
dent Courts on account of the cost, the non-freeholders would 
be glad to pay their part of a poll, or other tax, large enough 
to support both the Courts and the Schools. 

We have spoken to you, Fellow-Citizens, of the nature of fun- 
damental laws, or Constitutions, and of the source whence 
they are properly derived; — of the history, operation and de- 

* The reason given in the preamble of the act of repeal is that the 
law of 1729 is " found very inconsistent with the constitution of this 
government, and contrary to the same." An independent judiciary is 
truly inconsistent with an arbitrary legislature. But any incongruity 
of this sort may be easily corrected by fixing a proper limitation of 
legislative powers. 



59 

fects of thepresent Charter; — of the great inequality and injus- 
tice in the apportionment of our Representation; — of the duty 
of extending* the privilege of Voters to all our fellow-citizens 
who are qualified to partake in it consistently with the gen- 
eral good ; — of the vital necessity of an independent and per- 
manent Judiciary. Have we, or have we not shown you 
that there is something radically wrong in the Political In- 
stitutions of Rhode-Island ; and if so, does it not follow, as 
an irresistible conclusion, that all political measures, design- 
ed and properly tending to produce a complete and effectual 
change, without any farther delay, are right, expedient, and 
entitled to your strong and cordial support ? A Constitutional 
Party in this State, if it proceed upon open and fair grounds, 
directly and resolutely to its end, is most emphatically the 
Commonwealth's Party. It has a right to expect the adherence 
of the older portion of our citizens; whose duty it is to trans- 
mit to their successors not merely what they have received, 
but all those additional improvements which the wisdom of 
age and of political experience has been able to suggest: — it 
challenges the best energies and the most active co-operation 
of the younger men. Every motive of duty and of patriotism 
calls upon them to arrange themselves on the constitutional 
side, and to aid us in making our government more suit- 
able to the condition, and more "meet for the service of the 
body" politic. As they successively come forth to refresh 
the life-blood of the political system let them be found among 
the friends of Justice and Reformation. We shall make the 
best return of gratitude to the memory of our venerated an- 
cestors, not by forever retaining the long established and pres- 
ent condition of our inheritance, but by proceeding, with some 
portion of their spirit, to do what they would do, if now within 
the range of human affairs and interests, to make it more wor- 
thy of the citizens of a free country. In the language of the 
illustrious author of the Declaration of Independence, "It is not 
only the right, but the duty of those now on the stage of action, 
to change the laws and institutions of government, to keep 
pace with the progress of knowledge, the light of science and 
the amelioration of the condition of society. Nothing is to 
be considered unchangeable but the inherent and inalienable 
rights of Man." 



60 

Without stopping to recapitulate more minutely the different 
topics and arguments of this address, we now commend them 
to your earnest attention and deliberate judgment, with con- 
fidence as to the result. We have endeavored to speak plainly 
and distinctly. But if there should remain any doubt in 
your minds respecting any subject, or part of a subject, which 
has been considered, we shall be ready to make any explana- 
tions that may be desired. We ask you, to call together, by 
your Representatives, a Convention which shall represent 
the people at large, and prepare for us a liberal and perma- 
nent Constitution. We wish to proceed in the usual course 
of our brethren in other States ; and that the same Legisla- 
ture which has imposed on the citizens of Rhode-Island a land- 
ed qualification not spoken of in the Charter lias at least as 
much right to suspend it, for the single purpose of facilitating 
the exercise by the People of the great, original Right of 
Sovereignty in the formation of a Constitution, we cannot for 
a moment doubt. 

We wait your decision. Let it be worthy of Republican 
Freemen. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



005 900 046 9 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 





005 900 046 9 



